Rakesh Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
1 MCRC-20670-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20670 of 2026
RAKESH GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Brijendra Kumar Vaishya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravindra Rajpoot - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Ms. Akanksha Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the objector.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of
FIR/Crime No.34/2025 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District
Singrauli for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Shivraj Singh and his wife
Nirmala Singh committed suicide by hanging at their residence on
01.03.2024. On the basis of the allegations made by respondent No.2
Pushpraj Singh, Crime No.34/2025 came to be registered on 08.01.2025
against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for the offence under
Sections 306/34 of IPC. The petitioners have projected the case that
petitioner No.2 Rajni Gupta was working in the concerned office and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
2 MCRC-20670-2026
deceased Shivraj Singh had, on 09.02.2024, allegedly consumed liquor

during office hours, abused and threatened her and was carrying an axe.
Petitioner No.2 accordingly submitted a complaint before the superior
departmental authorities as well as the police.
3. Pursuant to the complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated vide
order dated 10.02.2024. The departmental committee submitted its report on
15.02.2024. Thereafter, on 16.02.2024, petitioner No.2 submitted an
application alleging pressure upon her to compromise the matter and the
MD/DFO also addressed a communication dated 16.02.2024 to the
Superintendent of Police seeking police protection. It is further stated that the
departmental proceedings culminated in termination of the services of
deceased Shivraj Singh vide order dated 19.02.2024. Subsequently,
petitioner No.2 submitted an application dated 24.02.2024 before the
Superintendent of Police seeking registration of a criminal case against the
deceased, which is filed as Annexure A-9. Thereafter, Crime No.30/2024
was registered against the deceased for offences under Sections 294, 506 and
509 of IPC. The petitioners have also placed on record certain WhatsApp
conversations/audio-video material as Annexure A-10.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the aforesaid material
demonstrates that petitioner No.2 herself was subjected to objectionable and
threatening conduct by the deceased and had taken recourse to lawful
departmental and criminal remedies. According to the petitioners, there is no
material showing that either of them instigated, conspired with or
intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
3 MCRC-20670-2026
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against

the present petitioners are substantially identical to those which were
levelled against the co-accused, namely Smt. Meera Mishra and Ravendra
Kumar Pandey. It is submitted that this Court, in M.Cr.C. No.15184/2025
(Rabendra Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others), decided on 08.04.2026, has already quashed the very same FIR
against the said co-accused. A copy of the said order has been filed as
Annexure A-12.
6. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation of any
specific act of instigation or intentional aid on the part of the present
petitioners. It is argued that the mere fact that departmental proceedings were
initiated against the deceased cannot constitute abetment of suicide. The
petitioners had acted upon the conduct of the deceased in accordance with
law and there was no intention on their part to compel or facilitate his
suicide. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750.
7. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner No.2 had herself lodged
complaints against the deceased prior to the incident and the departmental
proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto. The deceased was thereafter
removed from service. Thus, the contemporaneous material relied upon by
the prosecution itself does not establish any positive act on the part of the
petitioners proximate to the suicide.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.2 opposes the petition and submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
4 MCRC-20670-2026
FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie

case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the suicide note and
statements recorded during investigation contain allegations against the
petitioners and other persons. It is therefore contended that the disputed
questions of fact ought to be left for determination by the trial Court and the
inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised at this stage.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The factual background of the present case is substantially similar to the
case which was considered by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15184/2025
(RabendraKumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others) decided on 08.04.2026. In the said case also, the allegation arose out
of the suicide of Shivraj Singh and his wife Nirmala Singh on 01.03.2024
and the same Crime No.34/2025 registered at Police Station Waidhan,
District Singrauli. The said order records the allegations concerning the
conduct of deceased Shivraj Singh towards Rajni Gupta, the departmental
enquiry, his termination from service and the subsequent registration of
Crime No.30/2024 against him.
11. In the earlier judgment, this Court examined the FIR, case diary and
suicide note and considered whether the material disclosed the ingredients of
Sections 107 and 306 of IPC. The Court held that for an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish abetment as defined under
Section 107 IPC and that the presence of clear mens-rea and an intention to
aid, instigate or abet the deceased is essential. Mere harassment, without the
requisite intention and positive act, would not by itself constitute abetment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
5 MCRC-20670-2026
suicide.

12. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment and contemplates instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid. Section 306 IPC makes abetment of suicide
punishable. Therefore, the existence of suicide by itself is not sufficient to
attract Section 306 IPC. There must be material demonstrating that the
accused intentionally instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide
or participated in a conspiracy for that purpose.
13. In Gangula Mohan Reddy(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding that person in doing a thing and that without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under
Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. The requirement of mens-rea is an
essential component of the offence.
14. In the present case, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the
material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, this
Court finds no specific positive act attributable to the present petitioners
which can reasonably be construed as an act of instigation or intentional aid
to the deceased for committing suicide.
15. On the contrary, the material placed on record indicates that petitioner
No.2 had herself complained against deceased Shivraj Singh regarding his
alleged conduct in the office. A departmental enquiry was initiated thereafter
and the deceased was ultimately removed from service. The material also
indicates that police protection had been sought in relation to the dispute.
Petitioner No.2 had further approached the police by lodging a complaint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
6 MCRC-20670-2026
against the deceased, pursuant to which Crime No.30/2024 was registered

against him.
16. The aforesaid circumstances, considered at the threshold only for
determining whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed, do
not indicate that the petitioners intended to drive the deceased to commit
suicide or intentionally aided or instigated him to take such a step. The
taking of lawful departmental or legal action against a person for his alleged
misconduct cannot, without more, constitute abetment of suicide merely
because such person subsequently commits suicide.
17. The prosecution may rely upon the suicide note and statements
recorded during investigation. However, even the contents of a suicide note
must disclose the ingredients of the offence. A mere reference to the names
of persons or allegations of harassment, without material showing the
requisite intention and a positive act of instigation or intentional aid having
proximate connection with the suicide, would not automatically constitute an
offence under Section 306 IPC.
18. It is also relevant that the same FIR and substantially the same factual
circumstances were considered by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15184/2025,
wherein the proceedings against similarly situated co-accused were quashed
vide order dated 08.04.2026. The present petitioners have specifically
pleaded parity with those accused. The State has not been able to point out
any material distinguishing the role of the present petitioners from that of the
co-accused whose prosecution has already been quashed.
19. The principle of parity is particularly relevant in the present case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
7 MCRC-20670-2026
because the allegations arise out of the same occurrence and the same FIR. If

the material forming the basis of the prosecution does not constitute
abetment against the similarly placed co-accused, continuation of the
prosecution against the present petitioners, in the absence of any distinct
overt act or additional incriminating material, would not be justified.
20. This Court is conscious that while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, it ordinarily does not undertake a meticulous
appreciation of evidence. However, where the allegations, even if accepted
in their entirety, fail to constitute the offence alleged, or where continuation
of the proceedings would result in abuse of the process of Court, the inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised to secure the ends of justice.
21. In the present case, the material does not disclose the essential link
between the alleged conduct of the petitioners and the commission of
suicide. There is no material demonstrating the necessary mens-rea,
intentional aid or instigation on the part of the petitioners. The
contemporaneous documents relied upon by the petitioners, particularly
Annexures A-2 to A-9, also indicate that petitioner No.2 had herself
approached the departmental and police authorities in relation to the conduct
of the deceased.
22. Thus, even accepting the prosecution case in its entirety, the ingredients
necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 IPC are not made out against the present petitioners. The
continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore, amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68108
8 MCRC-20670-2026
23. Consequently, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to the

benefit of the judgment dated 08.04.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.15184/2025,
as the factual foundation and allegations are substantially identical and no
distinguishing material warranting a different conclusion has been brought to
the notice of this Court.
24. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime
No.34/2025 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli, for
offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC, insofar as it relates to the
present petitioners, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
including the charge-sheet, if filed, are hereby quashed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 08-09-
2026 15:32:51