Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harisingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
1 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
Cr.R. No.5804/2025
HARISINGH S/O BALU MOHANIYA
VS.
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ambuj Patel - G.A for the respondent/State.
______________________________________________________
Reserved on : 22/07/2026
Post on : 27/07/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Sections
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (read with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
2 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023). The revisionist/applicant assails the impugned order dated
12/09/2025 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge,
Sardarpur, District Dhar, M.P. in Session Trial No.31/25 arising out
of Crime No.347/24.
2. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has framed
charges against the applicant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) / Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The applicant seeks the
relief of setting-aside the said impugned order and discharging him
from the alleged offenses.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 23/08/2024, the
concerning police received a merg intimation from the complainant.
Consequently, a merg under Section 194 of B.N.S.S., 2023 was
registered at Merg No. 53/24. It was reported that the deceased,
Mohan, had committed suicide by hanging himself.
4. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and co-accused
Vijay instigated the deceased Mohan to commit suicide by
demanding money and threatening to register a false FIR of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
3 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
molestation against him. Based on these allegations, P.S. Rajgarh,
District Dhar, M.P. registered an FIR at Crime No.347/24 against
the applicant under Section 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
5. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
filed, and the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges under
Section 306 of the IPC / 108 read with 3(5) of the BNS, 2023
against the applicant vide the impugned order dated 12/09/2025.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
6. The applicant contends that the impugned order framing
charges is neither legal, proper, nor correct. It is submitted that the
learned lower Court drew unwarranted inferences without properly
considering the facts and the law, and failed to appreciate that the
acts of the applicant do not fall within the purview of abetment,
instigation, or intentional aiding.
7. The revisionist heavily relies on the fact that there is no
suicide note left by the deceased implicating the applicant, nor was
any prior FIR lodged by the deceased regarding alleged harassment
or extortion. The applicant states that the deceased was accused of
molesting the applicant’s wife, leading to a compromise before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
4 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
Panchayat between the parties, and the present FIR contains only
general and omnibus allegations.
8. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002
Supreme Court 1998, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 83, Shabbir
Hussain Vs. State of M.P. , Roop Kishore Madan Vs. State, and
Priti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand 2010 SCC (7), the applicant
argues that mere harassment, without any positive action proximate
to the time of occurrence compelling the suicide, cannot equate to
an offense under Section 306 of the IPC. The deceased had the
option to lodge an FIR but chose not to do so.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
9. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State
vehemently opposed the present revision. It is argued that the
impugned order is well-reasoned and based on the material
available in the charge sheet.
10. The State/respondent submits that the statements recorded
during the investigation, particularly that of the deceased’s wife,
prima facie establish that the applicant and the co-accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
5 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
continuously harassed and threatened the deceased, which drove
him to end his life. The State asserts that at the stage of framing
charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and no interference is
warranted.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
11. Heard the parties and perused the record available.
12. At the outset, it is imperative to delineate the scope of
revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.
The Revisional Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction and does
not function as a regular Court of Appeal. A roving inquiry or a
meticulous re-appreciation of evidence is generally impermissible
unless required to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.
13. The legal framework surrounding Section 306 of the IPC is
well crystalized by the Apex Court. To successfully establish the
charge of abetment, the prevailing law dictates that the act of the
accused must inevitably be the direct and proximate cause of the
tragic suicide, accompanied by a clear mens rea. In the landmark
case of Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : (2002) SCC
(Cri) 1141 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 548, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court elucidated the concept of instigation as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
6 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
“12. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or
urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to
stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is
the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common
knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on
the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered
with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion.”
14. Further enriching this jurisprudence, the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the recent judgment of Prakash and others vs. the State of
Maharastra and Anr. 2024 INSC 1020 has authoritatively held
the following regarding the necessity of a positive act:
“17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. This Court further observed that the
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and
that act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide.
However, this Court has cautioned that since each
person reacts differently to the same provocation
depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to
lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with suchSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204457 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.”
“22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. It has been held that since
the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the
offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted
and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court
would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of
the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.
This Court further observed that a mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would
not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the
accused which compels the person to commit suicide.
This Court also emphasised that such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on
the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds
of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and
deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-
show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the
offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused
kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words
or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
This Court held that owing to the fact that the human
mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways
and that similar actions are dealt with differently bySignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204458 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
different persons, each case is required to be dealt
with its own facts and circumstances.”
15. In the present case, the entire framework of charges against
the applicant rests heavily on the deposition of the deceased’s wife,
Rajubai, who deposed as follows:
“She stated that I live at the above address and do
farming and I have four children. I am the first wife of
my husband Mohan and the second wife is Pilabai,
who has one child. On 23.08.2024, at around 02.30 in
the afternoon, I was working in the field in front of the
house with my father-in-law Bapu Kharadi, father Vija
Kharadi. When I heard my son Akhilesh, son of
Mohan Kharadi, shouting loudly that his father Mohan
had hanged himself inside the house, I and my father-
in-law Bapu Kharadi came running and my brother-in-
law Roop Singh also came running from the house in
front and saw that my husband Mohan was lying on
the ground and his breathing had stopped, he was dead.
My husband Mohan had given Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand
to Harsingh, son of Balu Mohaniya, caste Bhil,
resident of Tikmajhiri, a resident of our own village,
due to need, for which a written document was not
made because there is no written document for
transactions in the village. My husband Mohan had
given Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand to Harsingh, son of Balu
Mohaniya, caste Bhil, resident of Tikmajhiri, several
times. He asked for the money he had given to him but
Harsingh did not return the money and instead
instructed his son Vijay’s wife Janabai to file a report
of molestation against Mohan but Janabai did not fileSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204459 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
the report because Harsingh was pressurizing my
husband Mohan so that my husband Mohan does not
have to return the money given to Harsingh, then due
to my husband Mohan’s respect and shame, a
Panchayat was held in the village, in which my
husband Mohan gave Rs. 3 lakh 30 thousand to
Harsingh and Harsingh’s son Vijay on 26.06.2024 in
front of witnesses Nansingh father Kodaria Bhil
resident of Ambedi and Sohan father Nana Bhil
resident of Lalpura and Gulla father Mansingh Bhil
resident of Tikmajhiri and Lobhan father Budaria
resident of Tikmajhiri, for which a compromise was
written, the signatures of witnesses and Vijay and
husband Mohan were made by the Panchas on that
compromise, that Panchnama was done by my elder
brother-in-law Rupsingh. He has been presented at the
police station today. After giving Rs. 3 lakh 30
thousand, my husband Mohan gave Rs. 1 lakh 20
thousand to Harsingh, that too was not returned. On
21.08.2024 at around 5.30 pm, Harsingh and his son
Vijay came to our house and at that time, I and my
elder brother-in-law Rupsingh and my father-in-law
Bapu Kharadi and son Akhilesh Kharadi were present,
then Harsingh and Vijay said that if you do not give
me more money, they will get a report of molestation
filed by their daughter-in-law Janabai. After that,
Harsingh and Vijay left. My husband Mohan told me
at that very moment that now I will not survive and
will commit suicide by hanging myself. Vijay and
Harsingh have tortured me a lot. I am mentally
disturbed by their torture. They gave me Rs. 1 lakh 20
thousand and they have not returned that too and are
making false allegations against me. On 23.08.2024 atSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2044510 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
about 02.30 pm my husband Mohan committed suicide
by hanging himself. Vijay and Harsingh used to torture
my husband for filing a report of molestation. Fed up
with their torture my son Mohan committed suicide by
hanging himself in his house. This is my statement.”
16. A careful and judicial scrutiny of this pivotal statement
reveals glaring and irreconcilable discrepancies that strike at the
very root of the prosecution’s case. It is an admitted position within
the statement itself that a compromise concerning an amount of
Rs.3,30,000/- had already taken place before the Panchayat on
26.06.2024.
17. More importantly, the complainant states that the deceased
gave a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the applicant, which was not
returned. If this fact is assumed to be true, the applicant legally
assumes the position of a borrower/debtor, and the deceased was
the lender/creditor. It defies basic human logic, normal behavioral
conduct, and common sense as to why a borrower would visit the
home of the lender to demand more money, let alone threaten the
lender for extortion. The learned trial court completely failed to
appreciate this inherent absurdity in the charge sheet.
18. Furthermore, the timeline of events completely negates the
legal requirement of “proximity” as mandated by the Hon’ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
11 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
Supreme Court. According to the FIR and the statement, the alleged
threat by the applicant to file a false molestation case was delivered
on 21.08.2024 at around 5:30 PM. However, the deceased
committed suicide on 23.08.2024 at about 02:30 PM.
19. Applying the ratio of the Apex Court in Sanju @ Sanjay
Singh Sengar (supra) to these exact facts, a gap of approximately
two days between the alleged threat and the act of suicide
conclusively demonstrates that the suicide was not the direct,
immediate, or proximate result of the altercation. The deceased had
ample time to reflect and had the legal option to lodge an FIR
regarding the alleged extortion or harassment, but chose not to do
so. The lack of a suicide note further weakens the prosecution’s
attempt to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of harassment
leading directly to the suicide.
20. Lastly, guidance must be taken from the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala
versus State of Gujarat & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4644/2025;
March 10, 2026). The Apex Court held that mere persistent
demands for money, or the frequency of disputes without evidence
of physical assault or a positive act intending to push the deceased
to suicide, do not constitute the offense of abetment. A threat to file
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
12 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
a case, while perhaps amounting to harassment, does not equate to
the necessary mens rea required to compel a person to end their life,
leaving them with no other option.
21. In view of the elaborate analysis above, this Court finds that
the learned trial court acted mechanically in framing the charges
against the applicant. The essential ingredients of Section 306 of the
IPC and Section 108 of the BNS namely, a proximate positive act
of instigation and the requisite mens rea to abet the suicide are
particularly lacking in the entire charge-sheet.
22. Even if the prosecution case is taken at its highest and the
allegations are accepted in their entirety, the acts attributed to the
applicant cannot, in law, be equated with abetment or intentional
aiding. The allegations are fundamentally improbable, and the
alleged threat is completely detached from the act of suicide by a
substantial gap of two days.
23. Therefore, allowing the trial to proceed based on such
fundamentally deficient material would be a futile exercise and a
grave abuse of the process of the Court. The impugned order
framing the charge suffers from patent illegality, non-application of
judicial mind, and a clear jurisdictional error that demands
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20445
13 Cr.R. No.5804/2025
interference in revisional jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of
justice.
24. In the result, the present Criminal Revision is allowed.
25. The impugned order dated 12/09/2025 passed by the learned
IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar, M.P. in
Session Trial No.31/25, framing charges against the applicant, is
hereby set-aside.
26. The petitioner/applicant stands discharged from the offenses
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and
Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the applicant, if
any, shall stand discharged.
27. A copy of this judgment/order be sent to the learned trial
court immediately for information and necessary compliance.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:53:41
