Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit Singhal And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 September, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1602 of 2019
Mohit Singhal and another ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is made to the charge-sheet dated 29.11.2018 and summoning order dated 23.01.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.454 of 2019, State vs. Anil Kumar alias Kala and others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, District Dehradun (for short, "the case") as well as the entire proceedings of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2
3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by the respondent no.3 ("the informant"). According to the FIR, the informant had taken `40,000/- loan from Sandeep Bansal Lala. She was continuously paying the installments, but she could not pay the entire amount. On 08.06.2018, Sandeep Bansal Lala telephonically called the informant and abused her. The informant took two months' time to repay the loan. On 15.05.2022, the son of Sandeep Bansal Lala named Mohit Bansal visited the shop of the informant and demanded the money from the husband of the informant. Mohit Bansal abused and started beating the husband of the informant with the belt. When the mother-in-law of the informant tried to intervened, according to the FIR, she was also beaten up by Mohit Bansal. He threatened the husband of the informant that he belongs to Shamli, he would kill him. According to the FIR, Sandeep Bansal Lala had taken 10 to 12 cheques from them (the informant). They have got one cheque bounced also. He sent a notice to the husband of the informant, due to which, he was under
depression and committed suicide.
4. During investigation, it is revealed that, in fact, it is Anil Kumar Singal, the petitioner no.2, who had 3 advanced loan to the informant. His son is Mohit Singhal, the petitioner no.1. The matter has been investigated. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against Anil Kumar alias Lala and Mohit Singhal under Section 306 IPC, on which, cognizance was taken on 23.01.2019, which is impugned herein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is made out; there is no evidence which may suggest that any instigation or any abetment was done by any of the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the suicide note to argue that there are other names also in the suicide note, but they have not been implicated. But, because the petitioners took the recourse of law under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, he has been named as an abettor. It is argued that if a person takes legal recourse to redress any of his grievances, such act in no manner could be termed as abetment to commit any offence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the suicide note to argue that there is no evidence that 4 any report was lodged by the deceased against any of the petitioners with regard to abuse or maar peet, as stated in the suicide note. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide due to financial crisis. There is no positive act attributed to the petitioners or any of them which may suggest that they committed any offence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down in the case of Ramesh Banshkaar @ Manju Banshkaar vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No.1677 of 2015, Madhya Pradesh High Court; Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 SCC Online Raj 138 and S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, (2010)12 SCC 190.
9. In the case of Ramesh Banshkaar (supra) also, loan was taken by the deceased, but when interest, etc. was claimed from the deceased, he felt trapped in the circle and committed suicide. Under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:-
"19. In the case at hand, it has been established prima facie that the deceased had taken loan from the revisionist/accused and he was pressuring and threatening the deceased for returning the amount, which caused severe mental stress to the 5 deceased and his wife. As a result of which, they committed suicide by hanging. However, it is clear that the applicant had no intention of instigating or goading deceased to commit suicide, for the simple reason that with the suicide of the deceased, his chances of extracting further amount would practically vanish, inspite of the threat issued by him to recover the same by selling the house of the deceased. The revisionist could not have conceivably foreseen that a demand or even coercion practiced by him upon the deceased, would lead to suicide of the deceased.
20. Even if it is presumed to be true that the revisionist was behaving like a loan-shark, it cannot be said that the deceased was bereft of any options. He could simply refuse to pay the loan amount and could have lodged an FIR against the revisionist if he felt aggrieved by his conduct. Even if the circumstances allegedly created by revisionist are held to be true. It cannot be said that he had created such a situation for the deceased that he was left with no option but to commit suicide. The applicant had no reason to conceive nexus between his action and the result that eventually ensued."
10. In the case of Manish Kumar Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court discussed the circumstances particularly relating to abetment in the matters where the money was demanded. In para 18 and 19, the Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:-
"18. In the present case, it is extremely doubtful if all the circumstances taken cumulatively could indicate any mens rea on the part of the accused-petitioner. It is an admitted position that Smt. Kusum Devi was not in 6 a position to repay the amount borrowed from the accused-petitioner and he had been demanding this money very often. Hence, if he made the casual remarks attributed to him as reproduced earlier, it cannot be said that he wanted or intended Smt. Kusum Devi to commit suicide. There is no evidence to suggest or indicate that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that Smt. Kusum Devi had purchased tablets of salphos and would contemplate or commit suicide.
19. Demanding a sum of money given on loan is not an offence under any provision of the criminal law. Taking out a willing and a mature lady to Ram Niwas Garden or certain hotels, is also no offence. Frequent visits by the accused-petitioner to the house of Smt. Kusum Devi was also no offence because it is not said that he was visiting the house against the wishes of Smt. Kusum Devi."
11. In the case of S.S. Chheena (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the law on the abetment and in para 25 of the judgment observed as hereunder:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 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 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."7
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant would submit that the case laws which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are at advanced stage of the trial and not, when cognizance has been taken. It is argued that the factual disputes cannot be determined at this stage. The disputed question of facts may find determination at trial. It is argued that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, it is argued that at this stage, no interference is warranted.
13. Learned State counsel read over the statement of the informant to argue that the petitioners have been assigned specific role. The petitioners, in fact, visited the house of the deceased, beaten him up, threatened him to life. It is argued that it is not recourse to any legal right. This is not permissible under law and it amounts to instigation. Therefore, no interference according to learned State counsel is warranted at this stage.
14. At it, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that whatever role is attributed to the petitioners by the informant in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") does not suggest any positive act of abetment by 8 any of the petitioners. Instead, it is argued that at the most, it may be an act of "criminal intimidation", as defined under Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC.
15. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). The jurisdiction, which is much wide, but guided by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case prima facie case is disclosed, generally, interference is not warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustrated the list of the circumstances under which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised. In paragraph 102 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or 9 rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16. What is being argued on behalf of the petitioners is that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, it does not make out even prima facie case under Section 306 IPC because no positive act is 10 attributed to any of the petitioners, which suggests that they committed any kind of abetment. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment in the matters of abetment to suicide. This Section reads as hereunder:-
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
17. What is abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. It includes instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid in doing of some act or illegal omission.
18. In the matters relating to Section 306 IPC, undoubtedly an attempt is made to read out the mind of the deceased as to what transpired in his mind which drove him to end his life. If some person is connected to such death in terms of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid that makes out an offence under Section 306 IPC. Very rarely one can find direct evidence on this aspect.
19. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012)9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed this aspect in para 35 11 observed, "In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence. The husband of the deceased was a paralysed person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their property. They had great faith in the accused and were heavily relying on him as their property transactions were transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 of the Code."
20. In the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, (2019)17 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the provisions of Section 306 IPC 12 observed, "It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions." The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed, "As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the 13 accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or 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. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." .
21. Undoubtedly, if a person takes recourse of redressal of any legal right and if any effected party commit suicide, based on these facts alone, no case of abetment to suicide is made out. But, is it such a simple case?
22. The Court, at this stage, may not examine the credibility of the evidence. At the face of it, if prima facie offence is not made out, definitely an interference is 14 warranted. But, if the facts require some deliberation, perhaps this Court will be slow in making any interference.
23. The suicide note was written on 30.06.2017? Suicide was committed on 04.07.2017. It records that the informant had taken `60,000/- loan from the petitioner Sandeep Bansal Lala. She has paid more than half of the amount, but they were finding it difficult to pay the balance, due to which, according to the suicide note, the petitioner Mohit Singhal started visiting their house; he would abuse them and did maar peet. Suicide note records that an FIR was also lodged. It is not on record. The suicide note records other name also. The suicide note also records that the wife of the deceased, who is informant has been trapped in the hands of the petitioners due to the drinking habits of the deceased.
24. The informant has given her statement during investigation. She tells it to the Investigating Officer that she has taken `60,000/- loan and had returned `40,000/-. She had sought two months' time; she was abused and on 15.06.2017, the petitioner Mohit demanded money from the deceased, abused him and beaten him. She further says that the petitioner Sandeep 15 Bansal Lala had taken 10-12 cheques from them. He had got a cheque of `2 Lacs got bounced and sent them notices. Has the deceased been left in such a position by the petitioners that he found his existence difficult? Has really `60,000/- loan was taken? Has the informant returned `40,000/-? Has the petitioners misused the cheques, which they have taken and filled it for `2 Lacs to create pressure on the deceased? Has the acts of the petitioners, may be termed as a positive act under the attending circumstances, which drove the deceased to commit suicide?
25. It is true that in the suicide note, the other names are also written, but it is also true that no positive act is attributed to them. The positive act is suggested to the petitioners. What is its truthfulness? It would find determination at trial.
26. At this stage, having considered all the facts including the suicide note and the other attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petition has no merits. Accordingly, deserves to be dismissed. 16
27. The petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.09.2022 Sanjay