Interim Order 28

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC 171/2024
STATE Vs. MANJEET SINGH
FIR No. 111/2024
PS Vasant Kunj South
CNR No. DLND01-003958-2024
08.09.2026
Present: Sh. A. B. Asthana, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present through VC.
Sh. Abhishek Kukkar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons
through VC.
Arguments on charge have already been heard and
today matter is fixed for orders.
All accused persons have been charge sheeted for
committing an offence under section 306/34 IPC as they instigated
deceased Pankaj Kumar to commit suicide.
An application seeking discharge has been moved on
behalf of accused persons stating that there is no evidence against
any of the accused that he instigated or abated the suicide of the
deceased. It is stated that the suicide note recovered from the spot
and the video recorded message of the deceased is related to
accused Manjeet only and name of any other accused was never
mentioned by him. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement
of wife of the deceased but is again silent qua the role of accused
persons except accused Manjeet. It is stated that an agreement to
sell took place between mother of the deceased and accused
Manjeet qua selling a shop and Rs. 8 lakhs were paid by accused
-- 1 of 4 --
:2:
Manjeet. Remaining Rs. 2 lakhs were to be paid at the time of
execution of sale deed but same was never executed by the mother
of the deceased. Ultimately, a civil suit for Specific Performance
was filed by accused Manjeet and vide order dated 10.08.2022 the
Court had directed the mother of the deceased to execute the sale
deed in favour of Manjeet. It is alleged against the accused persons
that on 15.02.2024 they tried to take possession of the shop in
question but they were acting in consonance with court’s order
dated 10.08.2022. It is further argued that as per viscera report of
the deceased no poisonous substance could be detected and there is
nothing on record to suggest that deceased expired due to
consumption of some poisonous substance. It is further the case of
the accused persons that a person cannot be put to Trial under
section 306 IPC merely because he had any dispute or conflict with
the deceased. Ld. Counsel has relied upon following judgments in
support of his arguments:
1.) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat 2010 8 SCC 628,
2.) S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010 12 SCC 190,
3.) Sanjay Singh Senger Vs. State of M. P. 2002 5 SCC 3741.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued
that there is ample evidence available on record to frame charge
against the accused persons under section 306/34 IPC and the
application seeking discharge is without any merits.
Submission heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the case laws relied upon by Ld. counsel for accused.
-- 2 of 4 --
:3:
It is matter of record that a civil dispute was pending
adjudication between accused Manjeet and mother of deceased
Pankaj. It is also matter of record that mother of deceased was
directed to execute a sale deed in favour of accused Manjeet by the
Civil Court vide order dated 10.08.2022. As per charge sheet filed
by the IO, no evidence was found against accused Dipti, Bimla
Devi, Mahavir and Anand and that is why they were kept in column
No. 12 by him. The only allegation against these four accused
persons is that they alongwith co-accused Manjeet had tried to take
forcible possession of the shop in question on 15.02.2024. It is
matter of record that another FIR bearing No. 111/2024 under
section 323/447/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Gurgaon Sadar
qua the incident of 15.02.2024 on the complaint of wife of
deceased. Therefore, the allegations of an effort to take forcible
possession of the shop in question are part of investigation of FIR
No. 111/2024 and therefore, same are not relevant while considering
the charge under section 306/34 IPC in the present case. Apart from
the allegation of 15.02.2024, deceased did not mention anything
against accused Dipti, Bimla Devi, Anand and Mahavir either in his
suicide note or in his video recording. It is also matter of record that
complainant also did not allege anything against these accused
persons in complaint dated 18.02.2024. I have gone through the
statement recorded under section 161 CrPC of PW Yogesh, Ishwar
Singh and Kaushal Kishor @ Krishan and supplementary statement
of the complainant but no act or omission are alleged against
accused Dipti, Bimla Devi, Anand and Mahavir apart from the
-- 3 of 4 --
:4:
incident dated 15.02.2024. Hence, there is nothing in the charge
sheet that these four accused persons instigated or abated the suicide
of the deceased by their act or omission and therefore, they are
liable to be discharged in this case.
As far as accused Manjeet is concerned there are
categorical and unambiguous allegations against accused Manjeet
that he harassed the deceased to such an extent that he was
compelled to commit suicide on 18.02.2024. There is sufficient
evidence in the form of suicide note and video recording of the
deceased. FSL reports have been received qua authenticity of the
suicide note as well as video recordings.
As far as viscera report is concerned, there is
subsequent opinion given by Dr. Ajay Kumar (SR) stating that
postmortem findings are consistent with death due to poisoning. It is
not in dispute that death of the deceased was not a natural one and it
would be a matter of Trial as to what kind of poison, he had
consumed. So, there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charge
against accused Manjeet under section 306 IPC. Application seeking
discharge stands disposed off being partially allowed in favour of
accused Dipti, Bimla, Anand and Mahavir and they are discharged
for committing an offence under section 306/34 IPC.
Put up for framing of formal charge against accused
Manjeet Singh on 10.10.2026.
(Dhirendra Rana)
ASJ-05/PHC/New Delhi
08.09.2026
-- 4 of 4 --