# Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 598
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 28225 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sujeet-kumar-vishwakarma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47763
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164,173
(8) & 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 302,307 - scope of
adjudication and its ambit at the time of
framing of the charge - scope to discharge
the
accused
u/s
245(2)
Cr.P.C.
is
extremely
limited
-
only
exceptional
circumstances which may justify such
discharge after passing of the summoning
order without any further evidence of
such a nature being produced which may
completely absolve or exonerate the
accused and the charge against them may
appear to be groundless. (Para - 10,13,)

F.I.R. for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. -
Marriage of daughter of first informant -
solemnized with one - co-accused having an
affair with his daughter - enticing away
daughter of opposite party no.2- approached
High Court - daughter returned and started
residing with opposite party no.2 - co-accused
came along with his friend on motorcycle -
opened fire upon mother of opposite party no.2
- intention to kill her - statement of injured not
recorded - critical condition - case converted for
an
offence
under
Section
302
I.P.C.
-
supplementary
charge
sheet
-
discharge
application
-
rejected
in
a
mechanical
manner.(Para - 3 to 5)

HELD:- Prima facie case made out against
accused. Prayer for quashing or setting aside
impugned
order
refused.
No
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned
order or the proceedings under challenge. No
abuse of court's process perceptible in the
same. (Para -16,17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Considering the materials brought
on record and keeping the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
exercise of power under section 311
Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that
observations and findings recorded by the
trial Court in rejecting the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant
under the facts and circumstances of the
case are fully sustainable. The trial Court
has committed no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned by rejecting the
application of the applicant. There appears
no abuse of process of the Court also.
There is no evidence on record to satisfy
this Court that trial would be seriously
prejudiced if the victim/applicant is not
recalled for re-examination or further
examination.

25. In view of the above, the
application of the applicant having no merit
deserves to be rejected. In the result, the
application is rejected.

26. The office is directed to
communicate this order to the court
concerned to proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 598
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28225 of 2021

Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Raj Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164,173
(8) & 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 302,307 - scope of
adjudication and its ambit at the time of
framing of the charge - scope to discharge
the
accused
u/s
245(2)
Cr.P.C.
is
extremely
limited
-
only
exceptional
circumstances which may justify such
discharge after passing of the summoning
order without any further evidence of
such a nature being produced which may
completely absolve or exonerate the
accused and the charge against them may
appear to be groundless. (Para - 10,13,)

F.I.R. for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. -
Marriage of daughter of first informant -
solemnized with one - co-accused having an
affair with his daughter - enticing away
daughter of opposite party no.2- approached
High Court - daughter returned and started
residing with opposite party no.2 - co-accused
came along with his friend on motorcycle -
opened fire upon mother of opposite party no.2
- intention to kill her - statement of injured not
recorded - critical condition - case converted for
an
offence
under
Section
302
I.P.C.
-
supplementary
charge
sheet
-
discharge
application
-
rejected
in
a
mechanical
manner.(Para - 3 to 5)

HELD:- Prima facie case made out against
accused. Prayer for quashing or setting aside
impugned
order
refused.
No
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned
order or the proceedings under challenge. No
abuse of court's process perceptible in the
same. (Para -16,17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Bihar Vs Ramesh Singh , 1977 (4) SCC
39
10 All. Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
599
2. Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, W.B. Vs Anil Kumar Bhunja , AIR 1980
(SC) 52

3. Palwinder Singh Vs Balvinder Singh , AIR
2009 SC 887

4. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay
Choudhary , AIR 2009 SC 9

5. M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs C.B.I. , (2020) 2
SCC 768

6. P. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the applicant with prayer to
quash the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Varanasi in Session Trial No.269 of 2020
(State Vs. Neeraj Vishwakarma and others),
arising out of Case Crime No.0517 of 2019,
under Section 302 I.P.C., Police StationSarnath, District-Varanasi as well as entire
proceeding, pending before the aforesaid
Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an
F.I.R. was lodged on 08.09.2019 at about
11:17 hours for an offence under Section
307 I.P.C. at P.S. Sarnath, District Varanasi
by opposite party no.2 against one Neeraj
Vishwakarma and one unknown person,
alleging therein that few days ago, marriage
of
daughter
of
first
informant
was
solemnized with one Kranti Vishwakarma
but
the
co-accused
namely,
Neeraj
Vishwakarma was having an affair with his
daughter, therefore, she was enticed by
Neeraj Vishwakarma. It is also alleged that
co-accused Neeraj Vishwakarma, after
marrying daughter of opposite party no.2,
approached the High Court at Allahabad
but after passage of sometime, his daughter
returned and started residing with opposite
party no.2. Annoyed by the same, coaccused
Neeraj
Vishwakarma,
on
08.09.2019 between 5:45 to 6:00 O' clock
came along with his friend on a motorcycle
and opened fire upon mother of opposite
party no.2, who is about 70 years old, with
intention to kill her, after firing, both the
persons fled away.

4. In the aforesaid case, though the
Investigating
Officer
recorded
the
statement of first informant but statement
of the injured could not be recorded due to
her critical condition. Site plan, showing
the place of incident was also prepared. In
the meantime, on 09.09.2019 injured old
mother of opposite party no.2 passed away,
therefore, the case was converted for an
offence under Section 302 I.P.C., entry in
this regard was made by the Investigating
Officer vide parcha no.2 in the case diary.
On 11.10.2019, Neeraj Vishwakarma was
arrested and for the first time name of
applicant, Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma,
surfaced in his confessional statement as
recorded by the Investigating Officer. Two
witnesses
namely,
Raj
Kumar
Vishwakarma and Ashish Vishwakarma,
were introduced by the Investigating
Officer and their statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they
also for the first time disclosed the name of
the applicant. After coming to know about
the fact that applicant has been falsely
implicated, he surrendered and has been
released on bail. After collecting evidence,
charge sheet has been submitted on
14.11.2019. Applicant came to know that
the Investigating Officer had received
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information that the applicant and another
person who were sent to jail, were not in
any way involved in the incident, two
persons, namely Bache Lal Vishwakarma
and his son Ravindra Vishwakarma @
Lucky were the real culprit, therefore, an
application was moved by Investigating
Officer, before the Senior Superintendent
of
Police,
Varanasi,
requesting
for
permission for further investigation in the
matter. After permission being granted, the
Investigating Officer proceeded to collect
the other evidences like call detail record
and also recorded the statements of Rahul
Sonkar and Ravindra Vishwakarma under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of first
informant was also recorded for the second
time, in which he has not supported his
earlier version and has also stated that why
the name of applicant has been taken by
him. On the basis of aforesaid evidences,
the Investigating Officer filed Second and
Third charge sheet on 01.11.2020 and
10.12.2020. However, the fourth charge
sheet was filed on 20.01.2021 wherein the
Investigating Officer has mentioned that
report regarding involvement of Neeraj
Vishwakarma and Sujeet Vishwakarma,
was to be placed before the competent
Court. The Investigating Officer while
submitting the supplementary charge sheet
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has stated that
as charge sheet has already been submitted
against
the
applicant
on
14.11.2019
wherein cognizance has already been taken,
therefore, the matter with respect to the
applicant will be decided by the competent
Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
has
moved
discharge
application
on
19.02.2021 on the ground that the applicant
was not named in the F.I.R., his name
surfaced in the confessional statement of
named accused. He was not present at the
place of incident on that date. There is no
evidence against the applicant on the basis
of which charge sheet was submitted. He
further submits that discharge application
has been rejected in a mechanical manner,
therefore, the order dated 24.11.2021 as
well as the entire proceedings may be
quashed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has opposed the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the applicant and
states that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the
concerned court below, by which, discharge
application of the applicant has been
rejected. He further submits that there is no
reliable evidence on record to show that
applicant was not present at the place of
incident. Therefore, there is no infirmity or
perversity in the aforesaid order, which has
been passed after considering the evidence
available on record. No case is made out
for discharge of the applicant, who have to
face the trial, inasmuch as, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, their
complicity in commission of crime can,
prima facie, be inferred and the offence is
made out against him.

7. All the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant relates to
disputed questions of fact. The court has
also been called upon to adjudge the
testimonial worth of prosecution evidence
and evaluate the same on the basis of
various intricacies of factual details which
have been touched upon by the learned
counsel. The veracity and credibility of
material furnished on behalf of the
prosecution has been questioned and false
implication has been pleaded.

8. Before proceeding to adjudge the
validity of the impugned order it may be
10 All. Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
601
useful to cast a fleeting glance to some of
the representative cases decided by the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
which
have
expatiated upon the legal approach to be
adopted at the time of framing of the charge
or at the time of deciding whether the
accused ought to be discharged. It shall be
advantageous to refer to the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh
reported in 1977 (4) SCC 39 which are as
follows :-

"4. Under S. 226 of the Code
while opening the case for the prosecution
the prosecutor has got to describe the
charge against the accused and State by
what evidence he proposes to prove the
guilt of the accused. Thereafter, comes at
the initial stage, the duty of the Court to
consider the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith and to hear
the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to
pass thereafter an order either u/s. 227 or
u/s. 228 of the Code. If "the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing", so enjoined by s.
227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
which ......................................

(b) in exclusively triable by
the court, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused," as provided in
S. 228.

Reading the two provisions
together in juxtaposition, as they have got
to be, it would be clear that at the
beginning and the initial stage of the trial
the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce
are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is
any weight to be attached to the probable
defence of the accused. It is not obligatory
for the Judge at that stage of the trial to
consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if
proved, would be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or not. The
standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a
finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of
the accused is not exactly to be applied at
this stage of deciding the matter under s.
227 and 228 of the Code. At that stage the
court is not to see whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction of the
accused or whether the trial is sure to end
in his conviction. Strong suspicion against
the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take the place
of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the
trial. But at the initial stage if there is a
strong suspicion which leads the court to
think that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
then it is not open to the court to say that
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The presumption of the
guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at
the initial stage is not in the sense of the
law governing the trial of criminal cases in
France where the accused is presumed to
be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But
it is only for the purpose of deciding prima
facie whether the court should proceed with
the trial or not. If the evidence which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the
guilt of the accused even if fully accepted
before it is challenged in cross-examination
or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot
show that the accused committed the
offence, there will be no sufficient ground
for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive
list of the circumstances to indicate as to
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
what will lead to one conclusion or the
other is neither possible nor advisable. We
may just illustrate the difference of the law
by one more example. If the scales of pan
as to the guilt or innocence of the accused
are something like even at the conclusion of
the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of
doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But
if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial
stage of making an order under S. 227 or S.
228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be
made will be one under S. 228 and not
under S. 227."

9. Aforesaid case was again referred
to in another judgemnt of the Hon'ble Apex
Court's in the case of Superintendent and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal Versus Anil Kumar Bhunja
reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 52 and the
Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to observe
as follows:-

"18. It may be remembered that the
case was at the stage of framing charges; the
prosecution evidence had not yet commenced.
The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the
above question on a general consideration of
the materials placed before him by the
investigating police officer. At this stage, as
was pointed out by this Court in State of
Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018,
the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are
not to be meticulously judged. The standard
of test, proof and judgment which is to be
applied finally before finding the accused
guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At
this stage, even a very strong suspicion
founded
upon
materials
before
the
Magistrate, which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged; may justify the framing of charge
against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence."

10. In yet another case of Palwinder
Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh reported in
AIR 2009 SC 887 the Hon'ble Apex Court
had the occasion to reflect upon the scope
of adjudication and its ambit at the time of
framing of the charge and also about the
scope to consider the material produced by
the accused at that stage. Following extract
may be profitably quoted to clarify the
situation: -

"12.
Having
heard
learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the
opinion that the High Court committed a
serious error in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it entered into the
realm of appreciation of evidence at the
stage of the framing of the charges itself.
The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions
Judge while exercising power under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is limited. Charges can be
framed also on the basis of strong
suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of
evidence is not in the domain of the Court
at that point of time. This aspect of the
matter has been considered by this Court in
state of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it was held as
under :

"23. As a result of the aforesaid
discussion, in our view, clearly the law is
that at the time of framing charge or taking
cognizance the accused has no right to
produce any material. Satish Mehra's Case
holding that the trial Court has powers to
consider even materials which the accused
may produce at the stage of Section 227 of
the Code has not been correctly decided."
10 All. Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
603

11. The following observations made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanghi
Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay
Choudhary reported in AIR 2009 SC 9 also
reiterated the same position of law :-

"10. After analyzing the terminology
used in the three pairs of sections it was held
that despite the differences there is no scope for
doubt that at the stage at which the Court is
required to consider the question of framing of
charge, the test of a prima facie case to be
applied.

11. The present case is not one where
the High Court ought to have interfered with
the order of framing the charge. As rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant,
even if there is a strong suspicion about the
commission of offence and the involvement of
the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to
frame a charge. At that stage, there is no
necessity of formulating the opinion about the
prospect of conviction. That being so, the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained and is set aside. The appeal is
allowed."

12. In a recent judgment in the case of
M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
judgment of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala,
(2010) 2 SCC 398 and reproduced the principle
laid down in aforesaid judgment. Relevant
paragraphs 17, 18, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are being
quoted below: -

"17. This is an area covered by a
large body of case law. We refer to a recent
judgment which has referred to the earlier
decisions, viz., P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala
and another2 and discern the following
principles:

17.1 If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
Trial Judge would be empowered to
discharge the accused.

17.2 The Trial Judge is not a
mere Post Office to frame the charge at the
instance of the prosecution.

17.3 The Judge has merely to sift
the evidence in order to find out whether or
not
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding. Evidence would consist of the
statements recorded by the Police or the
documents produced before the Court.

17.4 If the evidence, which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the
guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted
before it is challenged in cross-examination
or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,
"cannot show that the accused committed
offence, then, there will be no sufficient
ground for proceeding with the trial".

17.5 It is open to the accused to
explain away the materials giving rise to
the grave suspicion.

17.6 The court has to consider
the broad probabilities, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This,
however, would not entitle the court to
make a roving inquiry into the pros and
cons.

17.7 At the time of framing
of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into,
and the material brought on record by the
prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17.8
There
must
exist
some
materials
for
entertaining
the
strong
suspicion which can form the basis for
drawing up a charge and refusing to
discharge the accused."

"18. The defence of the accused is
not to be looked into at the stage when the
accused seeks to be discharged under Section
227 of the Cr.P.C. The expression, "the record
of the case", used in Section 227 of the
Cr.PC, is to be understood as the documents
and the articles, if any, produced by the
prosecution. The Code does not give any
right to the accused to produce any document
at the stage of framing of the charge. At the
stage of framing of the charge, the
submission of the accused is to be confined to
the material produced by the Police."

28. It is here that again it becomes
necessary that we remind ourselves of the
contours of the jurisdiction under Section 227
of the Cr.PC. The principle established is to
take
the
materials
produced
by
the
prosecution, both in the form of oral
statements and also documentary material,
and act upon it without it been subjected to
questioning through cross-examination and
everything assumed in favour of the
prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no
offence, as alleged, is made out against the
accused, it, undoubtedly, would enure to the
benefit of the accused warranting the Trial
Court to discharge the accused."

29. It is not open to the accused to
rely on material by way of defence and
persuade the court to discharge him.

30. However, what is the meaning
of the expression "materials on the basis of
which grave suspicion is aroused in the
mind of the court's", which is not explained
away? Can the accused explain away the
material only with reference to the
materials produced by the prosecution?
Can the accused rely upon material which
he chooses to produce at the stage?

31. In view of the decisions of this
Court that the accused can only rely on the
materials which are produced by the
prosecution, it must be understood that the
grave suspicion, if it is established on the
materials, should be explained away only in
terms of the materials made available by the
prosecution. No doubt, the accused may
appeal to the broad probabilities to the case
to persuade the court to discharge him."

13. In fact the scope to discharge the
accused u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. is extremely limited.
There are only exceptional circumstances
which may justify such discharge after passing
of the summoning order without any further
evidence of such a nature being produced
which may completely absolve or exonerate the
accused and the charge against them may
appear to be groundless. There may also be
such circumstances which may be brought to
the notice of the court like the absence of
legally required sanction or any such legal
embargo which prohibits the continuation of
proceedings against accused. Ordinarily it is
indeed very hard to succeed in obtaining a
discharge successfully on the basis of same set
of evidence which was found sufficient by the
court for the purpose of summoning the
accused to face the trial but because the
possibility, however limited it be, does exist to
get a discharge even without recording any
evidence
after
summoning
that
the
applications u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. are moved and
are, as they should be, entertained by the
courts.

14. Illumined by the case law referred
to herein above, this Court has adverted to
the entire record of the case.
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