Jharkhand High Court
Anoop Kumar Mittal vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2131 of 2020
----
1.Anoop Kumar Mittal
2.Parvinder Kumar Seth
3.Shri Rajendra Choudhari .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate
For the Informant :- Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
----
5/15.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. In this petition, the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.174 of 2019 registered for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The F.I.R has been lodged alleging therein that on 19.11.2019 the informant received a call on his mobile that his brother namely Rakesh Kumar Grover has fallen and is lying down at his office. After the informant reached the office of his brother he saw that some persons trying to open the door and thereafter the informant found that his brother is covered with blood and lying on the floor. The informant rushed to Asian Jalan Hospital along with his brother where his brother -1- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020 declared dead by the doctor. Thereafter he took his brother to PMCH, where the doctor declared his brother dead. It is further stated by the informant that his brother may have been killed by some unknown person or he has committed suicide. Hence the F.I.R.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 was working as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Building Construction Corporation Limited at the relevant point of time and demitted the office on 31.03.2019, petitioner no.2 was posted as Executive Director, National Building Construction Corporation Limited at the relevant point of time and demitted the office on 31.10.2019 and the petitioner no.3 is currently posted as Director (Commercial) of National Building Construction Corporation Limited. He submits that these petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the complainant has filed the case against the petitioners and prima facie no case is made out. He further submits that there is bald allegation against the petitioners. According to him, the complainant was the contractor of the said company and he was awarded certain contract and he was not completed the work and the payment was not made, and this is why, falsely the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel submits that earlier the complainant has lodged the complaint case in which the learned court has not been pleased to take cognizance and the complainant has preferred revision application before the learned Sessions judge which was also dismissed by order dated 29.08.2019 and again the complainant has preferred Cr.M.P.No.3520 of 2019 before this Court which is still pending. He submits that in view of these facts even if the suicide note is there, the petitioners cannot be implicated in a case -2- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020 like this and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427. He further relied in the case of Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2024) 1 SCC
417. Relying on above two judgments, he submits that issue is well settled, and he relied in paragraph nos. 50 to 53 of the judgment in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others(supra) which are quoted below:
"50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgments of this Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] ("Kishori Lal") and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62] . In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed : (SCC p. 712, para 12) "12. ... 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 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."-3- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020
51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] , "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari, J., observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25) "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."
52.Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] was specifically a case which arose in the context of a petition under Section 482 CrPC where the High Court had dismissed [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the appellant-accused. In the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court, delivered by V.S. Sirpurkar, J., the test laid down in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] was applied and the Court held : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC p. 631, paras 10-11) "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this -4- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020 suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this."
53. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC pp. 631-32, para 12) "12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note." The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and "cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide". Reversing the judgment [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed."
-5- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020
5. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that investigation is still going on and the case is registered under section 302 I.P.C. From the place of occurrence, suicide note was recovered and there are direct allegations made in the suicide note against these petitioners.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that in paragraph no.4 of the case diary it has come that the deceased has left the suicide note and thereafter the same was seized and in the suicide note, the name of these petitioners have been disclosed and the allegations are made that these petitioners were demanding 50% of the due amount with the petitioners for work done by the deceased and total amount was Rs.5 crores and 92 lakhs. He submits that in view of that direct instigation is there against these petitioners and pursuant to that, he has committed suicide. He submits that investigation is still going on and in view of that at present the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed.
8. In the contents of the F.I.R the allegations are made and on receiving of the information the informant has went to the place of occurrence and found that his brother was lying on the floor in the pool of blood and thereafter the investigation started and from the place of occurrence, the suicide note was also recovered in which the name of the petitioners have been taken saying that these petitioners have demanded 50% of the admitted dues of the contract which was total amount of Rs.5 crores and 92 lakhs. Thus, prima facie, it appears that instigation is there and that is why the law, that if the instigation is not there or any aid committing suicide, then section 306 IPC is not attracted -6- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020 and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others(supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, in the case in hand, the instigation is there, in view of the suicidal note, admittedly the FIR was not registered against the petitioners, however, in the investigation the name of the petitioners has come and these all are the things which can be corroborated in the investigation and the investigation is not complete as yet. The case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others(supra) relied on the principle of abetment of suicide and by the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only granted interim bail to the petitioner of that case and that is not the case of quashing of entire proceedings. There are parameters of quashing of the F.I.R. It is well settled that if the prima facie case is made out and the investigation is going on, at the threshold, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the F.I.R cannot be quashed. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not in dispute. The judgments are applied in the facts and circumstances of each case, the contents of the present FIR are otherwise and the Court finds that no case of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding or the F.I.R is made out.
9. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020 is dismissed.
10. The investigation will continue in accordance with law without prejudice to this order.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R. -7- Cr.M.P. No.2131 of 2020