Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 October, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M)
Date of decision: 07.10.2023
Sharanjit Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala
whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner and others under
Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120-B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint bearing
No.1969/2013 came to be instituted at the instance of the petitioner-Sharanjit
Singh against the deceased-Rajnish Kumar with respect to the dishonour of a
cheque bearing No. 871744 dated 01.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.90,000/-.
The deceased came to be convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Patiala, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.07.2015 (Annexure P-1). The finding of the Court was that the cheque
was dated 01.10.2013 and was supposed to have been lost on 18.12.2013
whereas the complaint had been filed on 20.11.2013. No evidence had been
produced by the accused to substantiate his defence that the cheque had been
lost and a DDR had been registered in this regard and that 'stop payment'
instructions had been given to the bank. Further, contrary stands had been
1 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::2::
taken of the cheques having been issued as security viz-a-viz they having
been stolen. In the said proceedings, the statement of the deceased (accused
therein Rajnish Kumar) was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is as
under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in present
case. The complainant is neither holder nor holder in due
course in cheque in question. The cheque in question
alongwith other cheques were taken by complainant from me by
fraudulent means by complainant and without any sought of
legally enforceable debt and liability. I have no outstanding
liability or legally enforceable debt towards the complainant.
As such there was no occasion for me to submit the instant
cheque to the complainant. The instant cheque was given as
security towards the loan of acquittance and the complainant
has misused the cheque cheques. I am entitled benefit of
acquittal".
3. One Jaskirat Singh, brother of the petitioner filed a criminal
complaint bearing No.1991 dated 21.11.2013 against the deceased-Rajnish
Kumar with respect to the dishonour of a cheque bearing No.238130 dated
03.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. The deceased came to be
convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide a
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2015. In the said
proceedings, the statement of the deceased (accused therein Rajnish Kumar)
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is as under:-
"I am innocent. I am falsely implicated in this case. I have not
taken any loan from anybody as alleged. I am Govt employee
and regularly drawing salary per month in GPF account. There
was no need of money as alleged at any point of time. Moreover
there was no friendly relation between me and complainant and
I met complainant first time in this present case. Some cheques
in which some signed and some blank has lost for which two
2 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::3::
DDR has been lodged by me in police. The bank was duly
intimated by me to make stop payment with regard to my post
cheques. The complainant has found my lost cheques. Since
then he is blackmailing me to flee easy money. The cheques are
being misused by the complainant and his relatives and his
close friends. I have already filed a civil suit against the
complainant, his brother Sharanjit Singh and his
friends/supporters for misusing my lost cheques for permanent
injunction. The complainant is not legibly holder of the present
cheque and I may kindly be acquitted accordingly ".
4. The accused-Rajnish Kumar (now deceased) preferred an
appeal before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and on
23.02.2016 got recorded his statement as under:-
"I admit this cheque being issued by me which was
dishonoured on presentation. Now we have compromised the
matter and I will pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
Sometime please be given to me".
As the accused did not make the payment, the aforesaid appeal
came to be dismissed and the conviction was upheld vide judgment dated
29.02.2016 (Annexure P-2).
5. The deceased had also instituted a suit for permanent injunction
on 14.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) restraining the defendants therein (present
petitioner included) from misusing and handing over blank undated cheques
to any other person. In the said suit, in Para 05, the plaintiff therein (present
deceased) disclosed the manner in which the cheque book and other relevant
papers had been lost. Para 05 of the aforesaid suit/plaint is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
3 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::4::
"5. That on 18.12.2013 the bag containing the cheque book
and other relevant papers belonging to the wife of the plaintiff
have been fallen while travelling in the Auto Rickshaw."
6. As the plaintiff did not appear in Court, the said suit was
dismissed in default vide order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by
the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala.
7. Thereafter, on 29.05.2016, the deceased committed suicide by
consuming Aluminium Phosphate, leading to the registration of the present
FIR No.35 dated 29.05.2016 under Sections 306, 420, 120-B and 34 IPC at
Police Station GRP, Patiala. The translated version of the FIR (Annexure P-
5) is as under:-
"Statement of Taran Kumar son of Rajnish Kumar Caste
Balmiki R/o E-22, Punjabi University campus, Police Station
Urban Estate Phase II Patiala, District Patiala aged about 23
years mobile No. 90413293320. Stated that 7 am resident of
aforesaid address and doing ITI course at Mayor Polytechnical
College, Jalandhar, Today morning i.e. 29.05.2016 I received a
call from my mother Neelam saying that yesterday on
28.05.2016 your father had given a call saying that he will be
back home within an hour but he has not come home till now
but you please come home now. Then I reached home from
Jallandhar. There after, I and my uncle Rajan went out in order
to look out my father. While searching my father, we reached at
Railway station Rajpura, where we saw a great rust of public
gathered at platform No.1, where a dead body of a person was
lying with face towards the floor and on turning that dead body
upside, I found the same was of my father Rajnish Kumar. My
father always used to say that he is being tortured and harassed
by Jaskirat Singh and his brother Sharanjit Singh sons of
Narinder Pal resident of 90/8, Namdhar Khann Road, Patiala.
They have obtained from my father 30 Blank cheques of him, on
the pretext of getting him a loan but no loan was arranged by
4 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::5::
them. They in connivance with Surinder Pal Sharma, Advocate
filed the said cheques in the courts at Patiala. For that reason
there was always a gossip at our home that a big fraud has
been played with us and my father always used to tell that the
aforesaid two have compelled him to commit suicide. But we
always gave moral support to my father by saying that God will
definitely do justice with us. Jaskirat Singh and Sharanjit Singh
have made a gang in connivance with other persons who used
to play fraud with the people. Today you have searched the dad
body of my father in my presence. During search, you have
found a suicide note written in Hindi in the purse of my father
which was found from the pocket of his pant, where in the
details of the persons and their names who compelled my father
to commit suicide, has been given and my father has signed the
suicide note at its end and I identify the same. A legal action
may kindly be taken against the persons named in the suicide
note and they have compelled my father to commit suicide. I
have recorded my statement t you in the presence of my uncle
Rajan Singh. After recording my statement same has been read
over to me your which is admitted to be correct. Action may be
taken against the persons named in the suicide note. Time is
about 14:00 Taran Kumar Rajan Singh attested Satwinder
Singh 657 GRP police post Railway Police Rajpura dated
29.05.2016"
8. During the course of investigation, a suicide note
(Annexure P-4 in the connected petition bearing No. CRM-M-46031-2019)
was recovered and the translated version of the same is as under:-
"I Rajnish Kumar son of Darshan Lal do hereby state
that in case anything happens to me then Jaskirat Singh and his
brother Sharanjit Singh son of Lata Sardar Narinderpal Singh
H.No.90/80 Namdhar Road Patiala along with Surinder Pal
Sharma advocate shall be responsible for the same. In this the
friends of these brothers are also involved namely Kuldip
Singh, Sameer Kumar, Murli Sharma, Ram Chander University
5 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::6::
wala, Gurpreet Singh, Sanjiv Kumar, Manjit Singh, Dr.
Maninder Singh, Pandit Sohan Lal, his son Bunty. Inspector
Karan Singh and Baba tripuri wale, Sohan Tripuri Wala, Lala
Ji Patiala wala, Commission Agent Pappu Patiala wala who all
are involved. Jaskirat Singh had fraudulently taken chques from
me for getting a loan worth Rs.3 lacs sanctioned from a
company in Delhi. Thereafter he had also given me sanctioned
letter and asked for 30 cheques saying that the same shall be
sent to the company who shall verify the cheques and after
preparing the required documents shall give a DD worth Rs.3
lacs and that thereafter no one from the company shall come in
court. Thereafter when I demanded my chques then Jaskirat
Singh told me that they have been sent to the company and
further told whatever information gets from there he shall
informed me. He did not guide me properly and thereafter
Jaskirat Singh along with her brother and friend presented the
chques in the Bank and harassed me mantelly and also issued
threats that he shall ruin me. Sarabjit also threatened me in
court that he shall kill me and no one can do anything against
him. Regarding this I also given the complaint along with my
wife to PS Division No 4 but the police officials did not accept
my application and told that they shall see to it. It is due to the
same that I have taken this step. If you people do not punish
them then in future they shall trap another person like me in
their conspiracy and shall die. Pandit Sohan Lal and son Bunty
started telling me to give Rs. 60000 and that after getting the
amount from me on 10.07.2015 they will get the cases
withdrawn pertaining to Kuldip Singh and Sanjiv Kumar. But
after receiving the money they did not get the cased withdrawn.
Jaskirat Singh and Sarabjit Singh have connived and taken me
to a point where I am committing suicide for the second time
Surinder Pal Sharma advocate is also involved with them
because they have shown this dream to the advocate that the
gold worth rupees crores pertaining to the Maharajs Raja's
time is present in our house, which we will dig it out, out of
6 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::7::
which you have to give us some share. And the remaining cases
filed by us, he will contest those cases free of cost. Kindly
consider this letter and take action. In this suicide note neither
my parents, brother, sisters nor my in-laws, my wife, son and
daughter are responsible for my death. The persons whose
names are written in this suicide note are responsible for my
death".
9. During the course of investigation, the statement (Annexure R-
1/T) of Neelam Rani wife of the deceased-Rajnish Kumar was recorded and
the translated version of the same is as under:-
"Made the statement that I am resident of above noted
address and am domestic lady. My husband Rajneesh Kumar
was an Government Servant in Punjabi University. He was
having salary account in State Bank of Patiala Branch, Punjabi
University, Patiala and State Bank of Patiala has issued cheque
book to my husband. My husband was having bank Account No.
MSB 55081483664. My husband had given me 30 cheques after
signing it. So that I could withdraw the money from the bank
for domestic need and pay fee of children. I usually kept these
cheques in lady purse. One day, I went to Patiala in a Tempo
and my purse was lost, which was being searched by us. After
lapse of time, cheques could not be found. We lodged the
complaint with Suvidha Centre regarding loss of cheques but
after some time, Jaskirat Singh presented a cheque of Rs.
1,70,000/- in State Bank of Patiala. Since amount of Rs.
1,70,000/- was not in our account, so this cheque was bounced.
When we went to State Bank of Patiala, Branch University,
Patiala then we learnt that cheques are with Jaskirat Singh son
of Narinder Pal Singh r/o H.No. 2090/8, Namdarkhan Road,
Patiala. Then myself and my husband Rajneesh Kumar went at
the residence of Jaskirat Singh, where Jaskirat Singh and his
brother Sharanjit Singh and his mother was present. We asked
Jaskirat Singh to return our lost cheques. At this, Jaskirat Singh
7 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::8::
said that he has got sanctioned loan of Rs.3 Lakhs from a
company. We will give these cheques to the company as security
presented your cheques in the bank as a person namely
Rajneesh has signed on the cheques. There was no address of
any person. Jaskirat Singh started alluring us, we came under
his influence, then Jaskirat Singh by sending us to his brother
Sharanjit Singh got prepared documents for getting sanctioned
loan from Krishna Group Private Limited Company After
passing many days, no loan was sanctioned in our favour. Then
we went to Jaskirat Singh but every time, he was telling that
you will be sanctioned. Then he got signatures on blank
cheques of my husband for sending cheques to the company at
Delhi. When the loan was not sanctioned, then we filed a
complaint against him at Urban Estate, Patiala. At this,
Jaskirat Singh annoyed with us and started threatening us and
told that you are blank cheques duly signed are with him. I have
filed the case against you after getting bouncing the cheques.
We became fearful and Jaskirat Singh started taking undue
advantage of our innocence and he in connivance with his
friends and brother Sharanjit Singh, Kuldeep Singh son of
Karam Singh r/o # B 35/213, Jatta Wala Chotran, Patiala,
Shamir Kumar son of Suresh Kumar r/o H.No.56 B, Hem Bagh
Colony, Patiala, Murli Manohar Sharma son of Pushap
Sharma, r/o # 40 Near Jain Petrol Pump, Patiala Gurpreet
Singh son of Paramjit Singh r/o # 1054/3, Near Lal Maszid
Seran Wala Gate, Patiala, Sanjeev Kumar son of Ram Kewal
r/o #16 - F. Partap Nagar, Patiala, Manjit Singh son of Ram
Singh r/o # 261/2 Mohalla Takia Rahim near Dharampur
Bazar, Patiala, Dr. Maninder Singh son of Jaswant Singh r/o #
816, Gall No.1, Anand Nagar A, Patiala, Harpreet Singh,
Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Rajinder Jaiswal, Jaskirat Singh
has got presented our cheques taken from us fraudulently. After
handing over to the above noted persons, they filed number of
cases against us and also got stopped our salary by them. At
this, my husband Rajneesh Kumar started staying under
8 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::9::
depression We have fixed by the gang prepared by Jaskirat
Singh. This gang also include Satinder Pal Sharma, Advocate.
Inspector Karan Singh Babia Tripuri Wala, Sholak Tripuri
Wala and Lal Ji of Patiala Wala and Pappu Commission of
Patiala Wala, who have threatened us after coming to our
house. Some time Ram Chand of University also visited our
house and threatened my husband. We came under threat and
my husband Rajneesh Kumar came under tension but to take
undue advantage of our innocence, Pandit Sohan Lal and his
son Bunty, who is residing in Sarai of Mandir in Books Market,
Near Sadhu Ram Kichori Wala came to our house and
disclosed that Jaskirat Singh is my man and he is under my
influence, will get compromise effected with him but I will take
Rs.1 Lakh, then myself and my husband went to the house of
Pandit Sohan Lal after three days after making arrangement of
Rs.60,000/- and after taking Rs.60,000/- from my husband,
Pandit Sohan Lal after writing date 10/07/15 in a dairy told us
that in case compromise could not be effected then will return
your amount on Friday, but he did not got effected our
compromise with Jaskirat Singh and nor returned of our
Rs. 60,000/-. We came in more problem as we are already in
problem. My husband Rajneesh Kumar was under tension. He
has filed application with State Bank of Patiala regarding loss
of cheques. At the end, my husband Rajneesh Kumar committed
suicide on 29/5/2016 due to harassment by above noted
persons. He has sent a suicide note to your house through
courier. The above noted persons have played a fraud upon us.
Whereas, we were leading happy life before loss of cheques.
Jaskirat Singh and his gang has also played fraud upon
Hon'ble Court, because no money was taken by us. Even
Jaskirat Singh and his brother Sharanjit Singh was not known
to my husband. On all the bounced cheques cases have been
filed by Jaskirat Singh through Advocate Satinder Pal Sharma.
By pleading before the persons, who filed cases against us went
to the houses including Sameer Kumar, Murli Manohar
9 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::10::
Sharma, Kuldeep Singh, Dr. Maninder Singh, Sanjiv Kumar,
Manjit Singh, but these peoples were telling to us that it is
correct they do not know us and nor paid any money to you but
our friend is Jaskirat Singh, who has given these cheques to us.
You entered into compromise with Jaskirat Singh. We will
withdraw the cases. I told these persons that due to filing cases
by them, my husband is under depression. If some thing goes
wrong with him, then you will be responsible. The above noted
persons have compelled my husband to commit suicide. These
people have played fraud upon Honble Court and with me. I
got recorded statement with you, heard, is correct".
10. Though, as many as 18 persons had been named in the FIR. The
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was prepared on 27.07.2016 whereas the
supplementary challan was prepared on 18.01.2017 against Jaskirat Singh,
Sharanjit Singh (petitioner), Gurpreet Singh, Ram Chander, Kuldeep Singh,
Sanjeev Kumar and Samir Kumar.
11. The charges came to be framed under Sections 306, 420, 120-B
IPC on 04.08.2018 by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.
12. Thereafter, the instant petition came to be filed.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a bare
reading of the FIR would reveal that no offence whatsoever is made out.
Merely because the petitioner had availed his legal remedy under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the deceased came to be
convicted could not amount to abetment or harassment as envisaged under
Section 306 IPC. The deceased and his family had given different versions
as to how the signed cheques in question had come into the possession of the
petitioner and the other accused upon which proceedings had been initiated
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This fact completely
10 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::11::
falsified the prosecution case, moreso, as there was no evidence on the file
that the deceased had either initiated proceedings against the accused for
cheating/theft of the cheques during his life-time or had given intimation of
the theft of the cheques to his Bank. In fact, the cheques in question were
allegedly stolen on 18.12.2013 though the complaint under the Negotiable
Instruments Act had been instituted earlier on 20.11.2013. He contends that
merely because the petitioner and his co-accused were named in the suicide
note would not establish their culpability as the contents of the note must
establish the ingredients of the offence. Reliance is placed on the judgments
in 'Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh,
2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 687, Netai Dutta versus State of Wes Bengal, AIR
2005 (SC) 1775, S.S. Chheena versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010(4) RCR
(Criminal) 66, Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab, 2017 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 118, Surender Kumar versus State of Haryana, 1999 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 558, Kashmiri Lal versus State of Haryana 2008 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 497, Ram Sarup versus Ravi and others 2012(5) RCR
(Criminal) 594, Shri Subhash Ramgopal Bharuka versus The State of
Maharashtra through Police Inspect, Police Station, Kannad,
Tal:Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad and others 2020(4) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 410
and Harbhajan Sandhu versus State of Punjab and another, 2022(2) RCR
(Criminal) 317'.
14. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned
counsel for the complainant while referring to the reply dated 08.05.2019
filed by way of an affidavit of Devinder Singh PPS, Deputy Superintendent
of Police (Investigation), Government Railway Police, Punjab, Patiala,
contends that the offence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. As
per the report of the FSL, the suicide note had been found to be in the hand-
11 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::12::
writing of the deceased. As per the investigation conducted by an SIT, the
petitioner had allured the deceased to procure a loan for him for which the
deceased had given 30 blank signed cheques. Thereafter, the petitioner in
connivance with his brother Sharanjit Singh and other friends including
Kuldeep Singh, by filling up huge amounts in the blank cheques, presented
them for encashment. The said cheques were dishonoured, leading to the
institution of multiple criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. On the complaint of the petitioner, Sharanjit Singh and
Gurpreet Singh, the deceased came to be convicted. However, in the
complaints filed by Sanjeev Kumar and Murli Manohar Ram, as the said
complainants did not appear in the Court, the said complaints were
dismissed in default. This fact showed that Sharanjeet and Murli manohar
Ram had not received any money from the deceased for which the deceased
had purportedly issued cheques but they had filed the cases at the instance of
the petitioner. Further, from the investigation, it had been established that
co-accused Jaskirat Singh wanted to earn more money by illegal means and
he would advance loans on interest and would fill-up huge amounts in the
blank cheques which he would receive as security. The said cheques were
filled-up later on and used to black-mail the borrower. Thereafter, the
petitioner would enter into a compromise with the said person. It is,
therefore, contended that no case for quashing of the order framing charges
was made out and the petitioner was liable to face trial in accordance with
law.
15. I have heard both the parties at length and have perused the
record.
12 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::13::
16. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be useful to
refer to the relevant provisions of law for the proper adjudication of the
present case.
Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"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."
Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing."
17. As to what constitutes abetment has been a matter of
considerable debate.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 687', has discussed,
as to what constitutes abetment and the relevant extract of the said judgment
reads as under;-
"13. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story
that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the
quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein
it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language
and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and die'. For
13 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::14::
this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan,
brother of the deceased, made under
Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the
house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had
humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The
statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under
Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is annexed
as annexure P -3 to this appeal and going through the
statement, we find that he has not stated that the
deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him
'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story
that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die',
that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or
urging to do some drastic or unadvisable 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 in a
spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with
mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Secondly,
the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the
deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The
deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998.
Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive
language seriously, he had enough time in between on
think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the abusive language, which had been used by the
appellant on 25th July, 1998 derived the deceased to
commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July,
1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by
the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the
deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would
itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the
quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged
14 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::15::
that the appellant had used the abusive language and
also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had
escaped notice of the courts below."
[Emphasis supplied]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Netai Dutta v. State of West
Bengal, AIR 2005 (SC) 1775', has held as under:-
"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide
note that the present appellant had caused any harm to
him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying
salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the
deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working
conditions at the work place. But, it may also be noticed
that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never
joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had
absented himself for a period of two years and that the
suicide took place on 16.2.2001. It cannot be said that
the present appellant had in any way instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the
suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section
306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the
commission of the crime. The parameters of the
"abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the
doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that
thing; or engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally
aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to
Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or
willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, may also come within the contours of
"abetment".
15 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::16::
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act
or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to
have committed any willful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no
case that the appellant has played any part or any role in
any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in
the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar
Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation
made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any
way harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case
registered against the appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do
not in any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant
would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned
Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First
Information Report against the appellant disclosed the
elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely
no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We
find that is a fit case where the extraordinary power
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the
appeal."
[Emphasis supplied]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 66', has held as under:-
"26. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 186 : (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has
cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in
16 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::17::
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society to
which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 196 : 2009 (5)
R.A.J. 278 : (2009) 16 SCC 605, had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and
"goading". The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is
different from the other. Each person has his own idea of
self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to
lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own
facts and circumstances.
28. 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
17 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::18::
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human
sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.
Different people behave differently in the same situation.
30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine
the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal
position the conclusion becomes obvious that no
conviction can be legally sustained without any credible
evidence or material on record against the appellant. The
order of framing a charge under section 306 Indian
Penal Code against the appellant is palpably erroneous
and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to
compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any
credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of
framing charge under section 306 Indian Penal Code
against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings
pending against him are also set aside."
[Emphasis supplied]
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Gurcharan Singh v.
State of Punjab, 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 118', has held as under:-
"22. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one
of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person,
predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the
two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The
basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and
the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the
intention and involvement of the accused to aid or
instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any
severance or absence of any of this constituents would
militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the
18 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::19::
culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the
accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well
of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive
mandate of Section 306 I.P.C. Contiguity, continuity,
culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 I.P.C., thus criminalises the sustained
incitement for suicide.
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its
earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that
courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to
whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that
the same had induced the person to end his/her life by
committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim
committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic
life, quite common to the society to which he or she
belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step,
the accused charged with abetment could not be held
guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @
Jhantu v. State of West Bengal 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal)
643 : 2010 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 184 :
(2010) 1 SCC 707.
30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 I.P.C., there has to be
a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there
ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased
to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been
propounded by t his Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 66 : 2010 (4)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 629 : (2010) 12 SCC
190 ."
19 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::20::
This Court in 'Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1999 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 558', has held as under:-
"4. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as
propounded by the learned trial Court that a charge can
be framed on strong suspicion and that the merits of the
case at that stage are not supposed to be inquired into,
but this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial
Court has not rightly appreciated the allegations so as to
bring the case of the State under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code. As per Section 306 whoever abets the
commission of suicide, in that eventuality only he will be
attracted with the ingredients of that section. Abetment
can be express, direct, indirect or implied but there must
be a close proximity between the alleged abetment and
the effect. The petitioner was the employer. If his gold
had been stolen or had not been accounted for by his
employees or apprentice he had the right to take the
search and interrogate. In that eventuality if one or two
slaps are given by the employer to his servant in order to
get a confession even that is not barred. There is not an
iota of evidence on the record prima facie to suggest that
the petitioner ever goaded, urged or excited the deceased
to jump before a running train. Moreover, the alleged
incident has taken place after a lapse of 20 days. The
jumping in front of the running train was the independent
act of the deceased, it cannot be connected with the
petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court
was not justified in framing a charge against the
petitioner under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. In this
regard, reliance can also be placed on Gurdeep Singh v.
State of Haryana, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 266."
[Emphasis supplied]
This Court in ' Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana, 2008(4) RCR
(Criminal) 497', has held as under:-
20 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::21::
"15.Needless to say, there was clear-cut interval of 3 days
in between 26th April, 1993 and the date of occurrence
i.e. 30.4.1993. If the deceased had taken decision to
commit suicide, her passions for this act might have
cooled down during this interregnum. Now it is to be
noticed as to what has to be established by the
prosecution to earn conviction under Section 306 of
Indian Penal Code. The accused will be guilty of
abetment in case of suicide if the cruelty meted out to the
deceased had the effect of inducing her to end her life by
committing suicide. He will not be guilty of the same if
the victim was hypersensitive to ordinary discord and
differences in domestic life. It is not enough that the
husband treated the deceased with cruelty. There must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. The abetment involves mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding
that person in doing of a thing. Section 107 of Indian
Penal Code defines abetment of a thing. The offence of
abetment is a separate and distinct offence. A person
abets the doing of thing when (i) he instigates any person
to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; (iii)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word, 'instigate' literally means
to provoke, incite, urge or bring about by persuasion to
do any thing. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy
or intentional aid, as provided in the 3 clauses of Section
107 ibid. Section 109 of Indian Penal Code provides if
the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment
and there is no provision for the punishment of such
abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment for the original offence. The offence for the
abetment of which a person is charged with, the abetment
21 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::22::
is normally linked with proved offence. [See Sohan Raj
Sharma v. State of Haryana, [2008 (2) RCR (Criminal)
810 : 2008 (2) RAJ 272]."
[Emphasis supplied]
18. As regards the culpability of a person for having committed an
offence under Section 306 IPC where he was availing his legal remedy;
This Court in 'Ram Sarup versus Ravi and others 2012(5)
RCR (Criminal) 594', has held as under:-
"11. In the instant case the petitioners were having loan
transactions with the deceased and it was normal for them to
insist that their money be returned. No act has been attributed
to them which can be termed to be taking recourse to illegal
activity for recovery of such an amount. Rather, they had used
the agency of the police to register FIR against the deceased
and had also filed complaints against him under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. Their conduct, therefore, was
that of a prudent law abiding citizen making an endeavour to
recover a bad loan.
12. The deceased, on the other hand, was surrounded by
numerous such transactions which had gone bad and it is,
therefore, the cumulative effect of all such bad transactions
which pushed him to a corner. Such situation could possibly be
have been a result of his own mismanagement, but that is not
for the Court to comment upon. Suffice it to say that the
complaint even if taken on its face value does not sufficiently
establish the commission of an offence under
Section 306 Indian Penal Code and since it has been filed in
the backdrop of a tussle where the petitioners seek to recover
their loan from the estate of the deceased, the lodging of the
complaint in order to ward off such action cannot be ruled out
implying thereby that the complaint is motivated".
22 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::23::
The Bombay High Court in 'Shri Subhash Ramgopal Bharuka
versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Inspect, Police Station,
Kannad, Tal:Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad and others 2020(4) Bom. C.R.
(Cri.) 410', has held as under:-
"10. The submissions made and the record show that Petitioner
Subhash Bharuka had filed two complaints under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
deceased in the year 2014 ( SCC No.9509 of 2014 and SCC
No.9510 of 2014). In the year 2015, Subhash Bharuka had filed
Summery Suit No.13 of 2015 for recovery of amount of rupees
27.77 lakh against the deceased. The submissions made and the
record show that permission was granted to the deceased to
defend the summery suit subject to condition of depositing of
50% of the suit amount within one month. In Civil Writ Petition
No.10428 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court
granted installments of aforesaid amount and granted some
time to the deceased to make the payment. This order was made
on 18th September, 2018. Thus, the record shows that steps for
recovery of the amount due, were taken in the years 2014 and
2015. As per the orders made in civil matter, some amount was
already deposited by the deceased. The order made by the Trial
Court Judge in summery suit shows that the record like
correspondence made by the plaintiff to defendant and also the
letter given by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of
transaction of diesel on credit basis were produced before the
Trial Court. The record showing that some payment made,
copies of bills, ledger account and cheques and also demand
notices was produced. Account certificate issued by the
chartered account was also produced. There is record like
examination-in-chief and some cross-examination of the
chartered accountant recorded in SCC No.9509 of 2014. This
record shows that certificate was issued by the chartered
accountant with regard to transactions recorded in books of
accounts and bills and these transactions were reflected in
23 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::24::
income tax returns. This cross- examination was made on 4th
January, 2018. The aforesaid record shows that Subhash
Bharuka had filed legal proceeding for enforcing his right, for
recovery of the amount due from the deceased. Some record is
produced by other side to show that in other matters filed by
Subhash Bharuka under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, defence was taken by accused that Subhash
was doing money lending business illegally. That circumstances
cannot be considered in the present matter as it is not the case
of informant and it is not mentioned in so-called suicide note
that with him there was money lending transaction. Admittedly,
the deceased had purchased diesel for his business on credit
basis, cheques were issued by the deceased and on the basis of
cheques, which bounced, legal action was taken by Subhash.
The Applicant from other proceeding is son of Subhash and he
has no connection with these transactions. If Subhash was
prosecuting legal proceeding for getting the aforesaid
remedies, he cannot be blamed for it. The suicide note and
other contentions also do not show as to whether and what rate
of interest was claimed by Subhash in respect of the amount
due. Everything is vague. The sum and substance of the so-
called suicide note shows that the deceased was in financial
crunch and he had taken loan from many persons. Naturally,
the persons who had given him loan were insisting for return of
the amount. The contents of the suicide note show that there
were no financial resources left with the deceased and he was
expecting his daughter, who had just completed some course, to
work and help the family. Thus, financial crunch appears to be
the reason behind the suicide.
11. The learned counsel for Respondent informant has
submitted notes of arguments, in which the provisions of
Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are mentioned.
He has produced copies of citations like AIR 2001 Supreme
Court 3837, (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh) and AIR
2011 Supreme Court 1238, (M. Mohan v. State). In both the
24 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::25::
matters, the wife of the accused had committed suicide. In the
first matter, there was possibility of use of Section 113A and
113B of the Evidence Act and from that angle the facts were
considered by the Apex Court. In the second matter, the
provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code
are considered. In the second matter while interpreting Section
107 of the Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court has made it clear
that there has to be clear mens-rea to commit offence and
conviction cannot be sustained without positive act on the part
of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. In the
present matter, there is no question of using of presumptions,
which are made available under Sections 113A and 113B of the
Evidence Act.
12. The learned counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on
observations made by the Apex Court in the decision given
in Criminal Appeal No.1291 of 2008, (Madan Mohan Singh v.
State of Gujarat and Ors.) decided on 17th August,
2010 and Criminal Appeal No.2086 of 2014, (State of Kerala
and Ors. v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Ors.), decided on 13th
August, 2015. In the second matter, there was suicide note left
behind by the deceased and the Apex Court had occasion to
discuss the provision of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Apex Court observed that in suicide note there was no
mention of particulars of inducement/instigation. The Court
referred the previous case in which the term "instigate" was
interpreted. On the basis of facts of those cases, the Apex Court
held that if a person is scared of the immediate calamity or self-
perceived consequences, the others cannot be blamed for the
same. The Apex Court has laid down that in such a situation,
the High Court needs to use the power given under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the
other case, there was allegation of commission of offence
punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code also.
The Apex Court held that the material was not sufficient to
infer that such offence was committed and then due to such
25 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::26::
circumstance the suicide was committed. The learned counsel
for Petitioner placed reliance on observations made by this
Court in the judgment delivered in Criminal Application
No.155 of 2019, (Chandrakant S/o Yadavrao Gavhane v. The
State of Maharashtra and another), dated 8th November, 2019.
This Court has also discussed Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code in similar manner.
13. The position of law given in aforesaid cases show that
intention a kind of mens-rea needs to be there for use of Section
107 of the Indian Penal Code. For proving the abetment of
suicide, which is made punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code
needs to be used and if there is nothing to show that there was
such intention in existence of the accused, he cannot be
prosecuted for the offence of abetment of suicide. The matters
of committing suicide by debtors when it becomes impossible to
return the debt are increasing day by day. Many persons help
their friends and others by giving hand loan or by selling goods
on credit. They are bound to ask the debtor to pay the dues. If
the debtor feels such demand as harassment, on the basis of
that circumstance, inference cannot be drawn that situation
was created by the creditors due to which no other alternative
was left to the debtor than to commit suicide. If he finds himself
unable to return the amount and he takes such step, the persons
who are entitled to recover the amount and who have
prosecuted legal action, which is permissible under law, cannot
be blamed for suicide of such person even if he has blamed
such persons for suicide in suicide note like present one. If the
Court goes with the presumption, in such cases, that inference
is possible of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code, the intention behind the provision of Section 107
of the Indian Penal Code will become otiose.
14. This Court had directed both the sides to see that the
matters, which are filed by Subhash against others under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are produced and
26 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::27::
copies of some complaints are produced. In those complaints,
Subhash had specifically admitted that he had given hand loan
and for re-payment of the hand loan, the cheque was given.
Those matters need not be considered in the present matter. In
the present matter, this Court is expected to consider as to
whether there was money lending transaction between Subhash
and the deceased. The aforesaid material does not show that
there was such transaction between Subhash and the deceased.
In view of these circumstances, this Court holds the reliefs
claimed in the two proceedings need to be granted. In the
result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
I. The criminal writ petition and the criminal application are allowed.
II. Relief is granted to the Petitioner and the Applicant of quashing of FIR to their extent and quashing of R.C.C. No.85 of 2019 filed against them.
III. Rule is made absolute in those terms".
19. As to whether being named in a suicide note, proves the guilt of the accused, this Court in 'Harbhajan Sandhu versus State of Punjab and another 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 317' has held as under:-
"16. Even, otherwise, merely being named in a suicide note would not by itself establish the guilt of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out. In the present case, taking the suicide note to be absolutely correct, the allegations therein do not constitute an offence for which the petitioner can be prosecuted".
20. In the instant case, the prosecution has sought to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner on the ground that he had induced the deceased to part with 30 blank cheques for obtaining a loan for the deceased. However, the blank signed cheques were used to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the 27 of 29 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082 2023:PHHC:130082 CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::28::
petitioner and his co-accused in order to pressurize the deceased to part with money. However, the prosecution case stands falsified by the different stands taken by the deceased and his family members regarding the circumstances in which the cheques came into the possession of the accused (complainant in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act). One version is that the blank signed cheques were stolen on 18.12.2013 whereas the other version is that they were given to the petitioner for the purposes of obtaining a loan for the deceased. There is yet another version that the cheque had been given as security. However, what stands out is that the cheque is dated 01.10.2013, it was purportedly stolen on 18.12.2013 though the complaint had been filed on 20.11.2013. Further, no evidence was lead in the Trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of the deceased making any police complaint of the theft of the cheques or intimating the bank for issuing 'stop payment' instructions.
This leads to the conclusion that cheque was issued for the purpose as mentioned in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
It appears that the deceased was overwhelmed by the multiple proceedings being faced by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was unable to repay his debts and was facing a financial crunch. However, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the initiation of legal proceedings for the dishonour of the cheque in question which subsequently lead to the conviction of the deceased. Merely by initiating legal proceedings, it cannot be held that the petitioner had abetted the commission of the suicide as defined under Section 107 IPC and punishable under Section 306 IPC.
28 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
2023:PHHC:130082
CRR-3672-2018 (O & M) ::29::
Further, the FIR and the suicide note do not disclose any specific act or conduct on the part of the petitioner or his brother-Jaskirat Singh which would amount to harassment or instigation committed with the necessary mens rea to commit the offence other than the initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
21. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner and others under Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120-B IPC is set aside qua the petitioner only and the petitioner is discharged from the charges framed against him.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
October 07, 2023
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:130082
29 of 29
::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2023 03:59:02 :::