Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.S.Niranjan Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7844/2016
BETWEEN:
Sri.M.S.Niranjan Babu
S/o late M.D.Sannadoddaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o "Amruthavarshini",
No.4705, 40 feet road,
Maruthinagar,
Someshwarapuram,
Tumkur-5712101. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.C.V.Nagesh, Senior Advocate for
Sri.Raghavendra K, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Station House Officer,
Sanjay Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore City-560038.
2. Sri. N.Jayakumar
S/o late Nanjundappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o No.25, 3rd 'A' Cross,
Shanthinath Desai Road,
S.V.G.Nagar,
Near Bande Ganesha Temple,
2
Moddlapalya,
Bangalore-560052. ... Respondents
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Chandrashekara K, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.173/2016 of
Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bangalore for offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and.
This Criminal Petition coming on for final hearing,
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Sri. C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner appears through video conferencing, whereas, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for 1st respondent and Sri. Chandrashekara K, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are present before the Court physically. Since the State is represented by the 1st respondent, the role of 2nd respondent who is the defacto-complainant is only to a limited extent as per Section 301 of Cr.P.C. 3
2. Heard the arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioner by name M.S.Niranjan Babu seeking for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.173/2016 of Sanjaynagar Police Station, Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC.
4. The factual matrix of the petition is that the 2nd respondent N.Jayakumar who is none other than father of the deceased Chaitra.J, informed of the suicidal death of his daughter on 11.08.2016. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the Sanjay Nagar police, Bangalore, alleging that, his daughter had left her parental home unceremoniously some time prior to her death. Subsequent to leaving her parental home, she was not even on visiting terms with her parents but in the month of January, 2016, when she called him on phone, she made a grievance against the petitioner 4 stating that the petitioner is in the habit of quarrelling with her and that on that afternoon of 10.08.2016, when her mother called her on phone, she told her mother that "why you people are troubling me every now and then by making calls, saying so, she cut the phone" But on 11.08.2016, 2nd respondent has filed a complaint before the Sanjay Nagar Police Station for one reason or the other, appears to have resulted in the registration of a case against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. A crime came to be registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Subsequent to registration of crime against the petitioner, investigating officer took the case for investigation and submitted the report as contemplated under the relevant provisions in the Cr.P.C.
5. Whereas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint and so also elements relating to cause of 5 death of Chaitra.J whether the accused is the cause for her to commit suicide. The deceased committed suicide due to mental depression and she is even in passionate with the accused as he had been frequently visiting the house of complainant and was sometime advising to the family members of the complainant. The same is stated in his affidavit.
6. Section 306 of IPC is very much required to constitute certain specific ingredients that the accused is caused for death of the deceased who committed suicide. In the instant case, based upon the complaint, the case in Cr.No.173/2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and so also Section 306 of IPC. The registration of crime against the accused for the aforesaid offences in relation to the suicidal death of Chaitra J who was patient by suffering from mental illness and she was also suffering from depression, because of that reason she had 6 suicidal tendency and even had attempted to commit suicide prior to 10.08.2016.
7. Even at a cursory glance it could be seen that the petitioner had absolutely no role whatsoever to play in the deceased committing suicide but this accused has been roped in the alleged crime saying that this accused was the cause for the development of depression of the deceased and led her to commit suicide. But this allegation made in the complaint is certainly with some motivation and so also ulterior motive in order to lug the petitioner in the alleged crime.
8. The second limb of the argument of the learned Senior counsel is that merely because crime was registered based upon the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, it cannot constitute the alleged offences, in view of the absence of specific allegation either directly or indirectly that this act of the accused has attributed the deceased Chaitra.J to commit suicide and also 7 causing some sort of mental agony. On all these premise, learned counsel seeks intervention to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Cr.No.173/2016 registered by Sanjayangar Police Station, Bangalore, if not certainly accused being gravamen of the charges would be the sufferer and ultimately would have to face trial, if the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
9. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 2020 SC 4714) at para-17 wherein it is held as follows:
"While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and 8 circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
10. In the case of M.C.Chaithra and Others v/s State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka page 2710 it is held that meticulous analysis of the material of the prosecution is not permissible at the stage of framing charge, even a cursory reading of the statement and averments in the complaint would go to establish that the grounds made out by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold that the charge should be framed against the accused for the offences punishable 9 under section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide as defined under section 107 of IPC.
11. The Trial court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. The entire material of the prosecution even if un-rebutted, there is no possibility of the petitioner being held guilty of the offence for which he is charged. In this judgment several cases has been referred i.e.,
(i) AIR 1977 SC 1489 in the case of State of Karnataka v/s L.Muniswamy;
(ii) AIR 2003(3) SC 650 In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh (III) AIR 2007 SC 2045 in the case of State of West Bengal v/s Orilal Jaiswal.
12. In the instant case, even considering the entire material facilitated by the prosecution and even if after laying the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 IPC in Crime No.173/2015 registered by Sanjay Nagar Police Station, there is no possibility of the petitioner to have 10 been arraigned as accused and to be held guilty of the offences for which he is charged.
13. The respondent No.2 N Jayakumar has filed an affidavit. In para No.5 he has specifically stated that his daughter Chaitra.J was not married and there is no iota of evidence whatever, to show that she was married to the petitioner / accused at any point of time. His daughter could not have married the accused because the petitioner was already married and out of the wedlock he has got two kids. The petitioner used to visit the family of the deceased as a friend as and when needed. They used to take his suggestions, guidance and advice. This is the reason stated in his affidavit and on the basis of the same, a crime came to be registered based upon his complaint to proceed further to register the crime. Therefore, there is no bearing in the complaint which is registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A IPC and 306 of IPC 1860. In para 6 of the affidavit respondent No.2, father 11 of the deceased, has categorically stated that the petitioner-accused is in no way responsible for the death of his daughter-deceased. Keeping in view of the affidavit filed by the father of the deceased, there is no scope for the prosecution to proceed further if any investigation needs in Crime No.173/2016 that the accused alleged to have given some sort of harassment to the deceased and led her to commit suicide and even the accused has caused deceased to undergo mental depression as a result of which she has committed suicide. No prudent man can infer as such.
14. In the instant case the allegations are that the deceased committed suicide due to undergoing mental depression as she was in passionate with the accused and the accused has caused her to undergo depression and led her to commit suicide. Merely because of passionate affair if said to be stated and also reveals the materials secured by the IO, if proceeded for 12 investigation, it cannot be said that it constitutes the offence under section 306 of IPC. These are the ingredients that have not been even adverted to by the prosecution. Even though the charge sheet has been laid by the investigation officer against the accused.
15. In the instant case based upon the complaint filed by N. Jayakumar who is none other than father of the deceased and based upon the complaint a case in Crime No.173/2016 came to be registered by Sanjay Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 498-A IPC. Merely because FIR said to be recorded by the police, it cannot be said that accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. It is relevant to refer to the material of a complaint made against the accused. But it reveals that deceased had fallen passionate with the accused and the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased who committed suicide but the deceased had taken decision to commit suicide even undergoing mental depression it 13 require dwelling in her for mental depression. The word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke incite or encourage to do an act and a person is said to have instigate another when he is actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means, or language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. There is no dispute about the investigation officer who registered the crime against the accused for alleged offences. The employment of the word 'instigate' or 'provoke' as given meaning in the context as stated above there is no dispute that the SHO of Sanjaynagar Police Station has recorded FIR by registering the case in Crime No.173/2016 for the offences alleged against him and then if proceeded for investigation to laying the chargesheet under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The offence under section 306 IPC is that commitment of suicide. Modern suicide depends upon the deceased has taken a view but the abetment or commitment of suicide is a 14 definition found under section 107 IPC. The same has been observed in the order passed by the Court below while passing on order on the application filed by the accused under section 227 of Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the ratio of the decision in the case of Satish v/s State of Maharashtra wherein it is held penal code 1860 section 306 - abetment suicide accused having passionate with the deceased. It does not specifically find a place of ingredients to commit the offence by the accused and causing the death of the deceased.
16. On these premises the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner states that it requires exercise of power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. if not exercised certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and abuse in process of law, on all these contentions and even referring the marriage invitation of the accused- M.S. Niranjan Babu, it is found that the accused was got married with one Geetha .R and they were blessed with two kids. When such being the family affairs of the 15 accused with his wife Geetha, the question of deceased was passionate with the accused did not arise and he is not responsible for causing her death. However, the deceased was undergoing some mental depression but the affidavit filed by N Jayakumar, her father had categorically stated that they are seeking some suggestion of the accused as and when needed but the accused was concerned with the family of deceased,. So it cannot be said that he has married the deceased and he is in no way responsible for cause of death of the deceased. But Jayakumar who is none other than the father of the deceased has categorically stated that after deliberate and detailed discussions, the complaint came to be registered by him in Sanjaynagar Police Station. He has stated that after leaving her parental house, the deceased was residing in Sanjaynagar. Therefore, it indicates that she is suffering from mental depression and she was in capable condition on account of involvement in the family affairs with her parents. 16 Therefore, the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased by committing suicide.. On all these grounds, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow this petition and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.173/2016 registered by Sanjaynagar police station against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC.
17. The learned High Court Govt. pleader appearing for the State has taken me through the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC 1860. But the crime came to be registered based upon the complaint filed by N. Jayakumar who is none other than the father of the deceased. In the crime, the mense rea has to be established to prove the offence of abetment as specified U/s 107 of IPC which is relatable with the Section 306 of IPC, but the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be determined categorically. In the instant case, subsequent to registration of a case in crime No.173/2016 the domain is vested with the 17 investigating agency to proceed further and lay the report as contemplated under the relevant provisions of code of criminal procedure mainly under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. But in the instant case the deceased committed suicide by undergoing mental depression of having passionate with the accused the same has to be inferred that there is mense rea in the crime said to have been committed by the accused, which are the necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC relevant to section 107 IPC and also offence under section 498-A IPC, the domain vested with the trial Court as to see whether the prosecution has facilitated the specific evidence. But at this stage it cannot be considered that there is no material in respect of allegation made against the accused for quashment of the case in Cr.No.173/2016.
18. In the context of the contentions taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and so also 18 the counter made by learned HCGP for the State which is even assisted by counsel for R2, it is sent that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC and so also relatable provision of section 306 of IPC are very much required to be tested by the trial Court. Unless the ingredients are constituted under the provisions of section 107 of IPC are there, it cannot be said that the accused is cause for the commitment of suicide by the deceased even if the chargesheet laid by the investigation officer. But by and large, if two views are equally possible to be taken into consideration, the material evidence which is secured by the IO during the course of investigation, if done, requires to be weighed to find out whether the accused is required to face the trial for the offence alleged against him.
19. When the deceased was undergoing treatment in Spandana Nursing Home and she was taking treatment as an old patient the report disclose that when she was suffering from depression she wants 19 to live alone and has become arrogant, restlessness, subsequently she will feel sad without any reason. Therefore she was under counseling with the doctor. This treatment sheet in respect of the deceased discloses that she was having mental depression and even she wanted to live alone. A prudent man can easily understand and also infer that the deceased had a tendency to commit suicide due to mental depression and not due to any sort of harassment meted out in the hands of the accused. The complainant/respondent No.2 in his affidavit has specifically stated that he had approached Sanjaynagar Police Station to file a complaint and based upon his complaint a case in Crime No.173/2016 came to be registered for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Even during the course of investigation of the crime, the complainant has placed the medical report of his deceased-daughter relating to the treatment she had taken in Spandana Nursing Home, the Institute for Post 20 graduation in psychiatry (DNB) which is located in Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, his daughter was suffering from mental illness till the date she left her parental house and also stated that she has no interest in her life. His daughter left the parental house during the month of August 2015 for the simple reason that she wanted to keep herself away from parental association. But in overall estimation and processing some questionable character Sri N Jayakumar, the father of the deceased has specifically stated that the accused is in no way responsible for the death of his daughter who committed suicide.
20. Though the complainant has filed the complaint before Sanjaynagar police station on 10.08.2016 relating to the death of his daughter committing suicide by hanging herself by veil and got some information about the death of his daughter who committed suicide and went to the scene of occurrence. 21
21. However Sri N Jayakumar, father of the deceased categorically stated that his daughter was not married with the accused but the accused has married one Geetha and they are blessed with two children. It is not fair to come in the way of parameters of section 306 of IPC. On all these premise, the learned HCGP for the State submit that the petitioner did not deserve for seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.173/2016 registered by the Sanjay Nagar Police Station. She has stated that deceased has committed suicide by hanging with the veil to the iron rod of window. It appears that she has committed suicide by hanging and her father has complained about the same stating that on 11.08.2016 at around 10.00PM in the night the incident has taken place.
22. It is relevant to refer to the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that while exercising power, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or 22 whether on a reasonable apprehension of it acquittal would not be sustained. That is the function of the Trial Court. However, the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It was referred in the case of Monica Kumar v/s State of UP (2008) 8 SCC 781.
23. It is well settled that inherent power of the Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not various specific remedies are provided by the Statute. Further the power being an extra ordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between sections 397(2) and 482 of this Code. The inherent power under section 482 of Cr.PC shall be exercised to quash the proceedings only when there is abuse of the process of any court.
23
24. It is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka v/s L. Muniswamy and Others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 wherein the High Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice required that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court inhering powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution the 24 very nature of material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the stay and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.
25. Further, it is important to note that, the essential ingredients of the provision of Section 498A of the IPC, 1860 are, a woman must be married and she must be subjected to cruelty either physically or mentally. The cruelty must be of such a nature of a willful conduct leading her to commit suicide. But in 25 the instant case, the deceased Chaitra J is not a married woman and though she has not married the accused, but Section 498A of the IPC has been lugged against the accused in the alleged crime stating that the petitioner had led her to commit suicide. Merely because of filing a complaint by her father, it cannot be held that the ingredients of the aforesaid offences have been constituted for commission of the said offence.
26. Insofar as the essential ingredients of Section 306 of IPC is concerned, abetment is essential to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. But, it is apparently lacking in the present case on hand. The cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the IPC remains unestablished, though the said fact is borne out in the complaint. When once the main ingredient has not come forth either in the complaint filed by her father or even reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police, then the question of proceeding against the 26 accused under Section 498A or even Section 306 of the IPC, does not arise.
27. But in the instant case, the gravamen of the accusation revolves on the question of harassment and cruelty meted out by the accused on the deceased. But however, the deceased was not at all married to the accused. Merely because the petitioner / accused had visited the house of the complainant and that they were seeking some advise from him is the reason that has been stated in the affidavit filed by the complainant. Therefore, even in proceeding for investigation by the Investigating Agency in order to lay a charge-sheet against the accused pertaining to the crime which came to be registered, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no possible material secured by the Investigating Agency to lay the charge-sheet under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.
28. Keeping in view the scope of Section 498A and Section 306 of the IPC in the instant case, it requires to 27 exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC, 1860.
29. Therefore I have no hesitation to quash the FIR relating to the case in crime No.173/2016 registered by Sanjaynagar police station. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is hereby allowed. Consequently the case in crime No.173/2016 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS /nm