# Kiran Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 605
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9345 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kiran-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-47765
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306-FIR lodged-on instigation of the
Applicant-mother-in
law-victim
committed
suicide-no overt act of Applicant.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Kiran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
605

15. The submissions made by the
applicant's
learned
counsel
call
for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may adequately be adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. So
far as the argument placed by learned
counsel for the applicant that applicant was
not involved in any way in the incident, this
Court is of the opinion that in the present
case, the involvement of the applicant is
clear from the narration of facts regarding
assistance of Neeraj Vishwakarma in
enticing away the daughter of opposite
party no.2 in the version of the F.I.R. as
well as the statement of the informant.

16. A threadbare discussion of various
facts and circumstances, as they emerge
from the allegations made against the
accused, is being purposely avoided by the
Court for the reason, lest the same might
cause any prejudice to either side during
trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the
perusal of the complaint, the summoning
order and also all other the material
available on record makes out a prima facie
case against the accused at this stage and
this Court does not find any justifiable
ground to set aside the impugned order
refusing the discharge of the accused. This
court has not been able to persuade itself to
hold that no case against the accused has
been made out or to hold that the charge is
groundless.

17 . The prayer for quashing or setting
aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2021
is refused as I do not see any illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order or the proceedings under
challenge. There is absolutely no abuse of
court's process perceptible in the same. The
present matter also does not fall in any of
the categories recognized by the Supreme
Court which might justify interference by
this Court in order to upset or quash them.

18. The present application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 605
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s
438 Cr.P.C. No. 9345 of 2021

Kiran Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Diwakar Singh, Alka Singh, Sri Anand Kumar
Kaushal, Sri Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Nadeem
Murtaza, Sri Vimal Kishor Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, Sri Pramod
Kumar Shukla, SriSri Vijay Prakash Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306-FIR lodged-on instigation of the
Applicant-mother-in
law-victim
committed
suicide-no overt act of Applicant.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Re:Madan Mohan Singh Vs St. of Guj. & anr.
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628

2. Rajesh Vs St. of Har. reported in (2020) 15
SCC 359
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah. &
ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427

4. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
S.P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State. No one has
appeared on behalf of the complainant nor
any adjournment slip has been moved.

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant,
the
present
applicant
is
apprehending her arrest in FIR No. 111 of
2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police
Station Cantt, Lucknow East, District
Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in this case as she
has not committed any offence, as alleged
in the prosecution story.

4. The attention has been drawn
towards the impugned FIR which has been
lodged on 15.07.2021, wherein the allegation
has been levelled against the present
applicant that on the basis of instigation of
the present applicant, the victim has
committed suicide. The basis of such
allegation is one suicide note of the victim
which was send to the social media. As per
the suicide note, the victim has indicated that
the responsible person for suicide of the
victim is the present applicant who is motherin-law of the victim.

5. Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance on the
judgment
of
Hon'ble Apex Court
in
Re:Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of
Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8
SCC 628; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; and Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra and Others reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 427, by submitting that the
basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are
suicidal death and abetment thereof. To
constitute
abetment,
intention
and
involvement of accused to aid or instigate
commission of suicide is imperative. Any
severance or absence of any of these
constituents would militate against said
indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and
14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are
being reproduced below:

"10. We are convinced that there
is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or
the FIR which would even distantly be
viewed as an offence much less under
Section 306 IPC. We could not find
anything in the FIR or in the so-called
suicide note which could be suggested as
abetment to commit suicide. In such
matters there must be an allegation that the
accused had instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or secondly, had engaged
with some other person in a conspiracy and
lastly, that the accused had in any way
aided any act or illegal omission to bring
about the suicide.

14. As regards the suicide note,
which is a document of about 15 pages, all
that we can say is that it is an anguish
expressed by the driver who felt that his
boss (the accused) had wronged him. The
suicide note and the FIR do not impress us
at all. They cannot be depicted as
expressing anything intentional on the part
of the accused that the deceased might
commit suicide. If the prosecutions are
10 All. Kiran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
607
allowed to continue on such basis, it will be
difficult for every superior officer even to
work."

 (emphasis supplied)

6. Para 9 in of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra)
is being reproduced herein-below:

"9. Conviction under Section 306
IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of
harassment
without
there
being
any
positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused,
which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide. In order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306 IPC,
there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission
of suicide must have played an active role
by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must
be
proved
and
established
by
the
prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. (See Amalendu Pal
alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1)."

(emphasis supplied)

7. On the basis of aforesaid
submissions, Sri Nadeem Murtaza has
submitted that in the present case, there is
no overt act on the part of the present
applicant and unless and until there is any
overt act or positive act on the part of the
applicant/accused
to
instigate/abete
to
commit suicide, the ingredients of Section
306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore,
Sri Murtaza has submitted that in the
present applicant may not be implicated
under Section 306 IPC.

8. He has further submitted that
investigation is going on and the present
applicant is willing to participate with the
investigation, therefore, her liberty may be
protected
till
completion
of
the
investigation and filing of the chargesheet,
if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

9. Learned AGA opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail but could not dispute
the facts as argued by learned counsel for
the applicant.

10. Therefore, without entering into the
merits of the issue, considering the arguments
of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Madan
Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra),
contents and allegation of the FIR, other
material
available
on
record
and
the
undertaking of the applicant that she shall
cooperate with the investigation, I find it
appropriate that the liberty of the present
applicant may be protected till completion of
the investigation and filing of the chargesheet,
if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of
the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re:
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
2020 SCC online SC 98.

11. It is directed that in the event of
arrest, applicant-Kiran Singh shall be released
on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime
number till conclusion of the trial on her
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court
concerned with the following conditions:-

1. that the applicant shall make
herself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

2. that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
her from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the court;

4. that in default of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

5. that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

6. that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;

7. that in case of breach of any of
the above conditions the court below shall
have the liberty to cancel the bail.

12. In view of above, the present
anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 608
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No.420 of 2021
In
First Appeal From Order Defective No. 689 of
2016

Anwar Ahmad & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corp. & Ors.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rahul Anand Gaur

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Satish Chandra Pandey

Civil Law- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order 47 Rule 1-Motor Vehicles Act 1988-
Section 173 - The present review petition
raises issue of deduction of personal
expenses and calculation of compensation
being faulty-Review is not an appeal in
disguise - Rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in the garb of review. It is
an exception to the general rule that once
a judgment is signed or pronounced, it
should not be altered.

Settled law that the power of review cannot be
exercised on merits of the case as that is the
domain of the appellate court, however the
power of review may be exercised only where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record is found or to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it and may be exercised on the
discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the order
was made and for any other sufficient reason.

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order 47 Rule 1-Motor Vehicles Act 1988-
Section 173- Here father cannot be said to
be dependant as it is not demonstrated
that father was dependant. The minor
children would take one quotient between
two of them and one count for mother
hence instead of 1/4 it has to be 1/3 for
personal expenses- There is an error
apparent on the face of the record in the
judgment. The calculation is based on a
grave
mistake
the
court
instead
of
considering
amount
payable
has
calculated
on
basis
of
deduction
of
personal expenses. In fact, the claimants