Madras High Court
V.Bhaskaran vs State Of Tamilnadu on 25 August, 2021
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
1. V.Bhaskaran
2. R.Navamani ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu
rep. By Inspector of police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Thiruvallur District
2. Sumathi ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in P.R.C.No.9 of 2016 in Crime No.117 of 2015 on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri and quash the report / charge
sheet filed in the above case.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.E.Rajthilak
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
M/s Row & Reddy for R2
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
ORDER
The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in P.R.C.No.9 of 2016 in Crime No.117 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri and quash the report / charge sheet filed in the above case.
2. The brief facts of the case is that 1st petitioner is employed as a General Manager-South and 2nd petitioner is employed as Human Resources-Executive at M/s Gateway Distiparks (South) Private Limited, having registered office at No.200, Ponneri High Road, Elandancherry Village, near Andarkuppam Check post, New Manali, Chennai-103. They have a subsidiary company called M/s Chandra CFS (Container Freight Station) and Terminal Operators Private Limited at Kammavarpalayam Road, Nalur Post, Minjur. The petitioners sought to be prosecuted by the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC, viz., abetment of suicide of one R.Kuppusamy, who was working as a Fork Lift Operator in Chandra CFS Kamavarpalayam. The said Kuppusamy, is the husband of one Sumathy, who is the defacto complainant and they are blessed with two children, one son, viz., Seenu and one daughter, Keerthana. Both the children were taking treatment in SSS hospital, 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 Thiruvottiyur and the defacto complainant was taking care of children by staying in the said hospital. On 18.03.2015, around 21.00 hours, the husband of the defacto complainant had come to the SSS hospital and stated that while submitting a leave letter to the 1st petitioner, he refused to accept the letter and threatened the deceased to come out of the Tamabaram CITU Union and if he failed to do so, he will be dismissed from the office, further, threatened the deceased that he will be foisted with a false case with the missing container complaint. The 2nd petitioner also joined and threatened the deceased and due to the threat made by the said persons, the deceased was disheartened and committed suicide on 19.03.2015 around 6.00hrs. Hence the defacto complainant, had lodged a complaint before the police stating that the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased and prayed to take suitable legal action by punishing them.
3. According to the petitioners, they were shocked to hear the said news that they have been accused in the said complaint, which is a false one and the truth is that the said deceased Kuppusamy was the fork lift operator. The crane operator one Kanagavel and one ex-employee, Sanjay Gandhi had stolen red-sanders wood worth Rs.1.5 Crores and due 3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 to the said illegal action of the above said employees (past and present), the license of Chandra CFS, which is sister subsidiary company, was suspended and the case was registered in Crime No.558 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC. But the workers in the said company were paid full salary. The said Kuppusamy, due to one or the other reason was irregular in attending the duty and that the management has not taken any strict action. The management was very smooth with the workers and the said Kuppusamy was in leave constantly and was absenting from work without any prior intimation nor seeking any permission. He was absent for many days, even during Jan, Feb, Mar, 2015 and only on 17.03.2015 he reported for duty and was directed to report for duty at Gate Way CFS. On 18.03.2015, a meeting was fixed at Minjur Terminal in the premises of M/s Chandra CFS with respect to the development of the company and Trade Union related activities. The petitioners along with other senior executives of the current company along with other executives of Chandra CFS had attended the meeting and had suggestion for development of subsidiary company and they have also informed all the employees to avoid absenting from work which would stall the growth of the company, after the meeting the workers and the said executives had left the premises. On the next day, viz., 19.03.2015, 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 Kuppusamy had committed suicide by way of hanging in his house. The defacto complainant on the ill advice of some persons had given a false complaint against the petitioners alleging that as if while submitting the leave letter, the petitioners have refused to accept the same and that the petitioners have threatened the said Kuppusamy to come out of the trade union, if not, they will foist a false case against them and due to which, the said Kuppusamy died by hanging.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the missing containers' case pertains to other persons, who were involved and the petitioners cannot foist the case against the deceased and they were employed with the parent company and had attended the meeting only for the promotion of the subsidiary company and in fact, it is not known to the petitioners that whether the deceased had attended the meeting and after a long absence Kuppusamy had attended the office work on 17th and 18th March, 2015. If the allegations are true, the said deceased would not have attended his job on 18.03.2015, as stated by the defacto complainant and there is no necessity for the deceased to submit the leave letter to the petitioners, because one Sathayanarayan, Assistant General manager is responsible for the same. All the senior executives of the subsidiary company had 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 collectively addressed all the employees and no individual attention was given to any of the employee. Deceased was having health issues and having further problem, which are not connected with the company. They never met the deceased in private on 18.03.2015 and he was present along with the other employees where only discussion was on the development of the company, on 19.03.2015, the person died, but the defacto complainant has given a false complaint and the petitioners are charged with offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail on 27.03.2015 and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners on 15.12.2015.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have raised various grounds stating that the complaint does not disclose any offence under Section 306 of IPC, further, the complaint and FIR are imaginary. The petitioners have not individually met the deceased prior to his death and the petitioners does not even personally know the deceased and he belongs to the parent company and there was no necessity for the deceased to give letter to the petitioners and they have not instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The respondent-police could not find any suicide note either from the deceased or from the place of 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 death and the respondent could not find any valid reason for the death of the deceased. The respondent-police had falsely alleged the petitioners' name in the FIR. The license of the said Chandra CFS Company was suspended by the customs authority and presently, the license has been restored and hence there is no need to transfer the employees from one company to another company and it is only a false and imaginary allegations and the Assistant General Manager, viz., Sathyanarayanan is the person, who is authorised to grant leave to the employees and there is no necessity for the petitioners to grant any leave to the deceased. The allegations for commissioning the alleged offence is that the petitioners have not granted leave is completely inadequate and invalid one and the petitioners have settled all the statutory dues that are to be paid to the deceased.
6. It is represented on behalf of the petitioners that all the other averments are false and there is no intention or mensrea and there is no instigation by the petitioners to force the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased person had stomach pain and he used to take treatment for the same and the 2nd respondent, wife of the deceased was not present in the place of occurrence and she was in hospital taking care of her children. 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 Further, the 2nd respondent, in her evidence had deposed that her husband, viz., the defacto complainant was a drunkard for the past several years and later, he is not at all consuming alcohal. All these materials to be produced in evidence and the same should be proved by the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant, wife of the deceased had stated that earlier, the deceased had sought for transfer to another sister company, which is close proximity to her residence. The fictitious reasons is to make a false case against the petitioners and they do not have intention to transfer people from one company to another. The petitioners are seeking to quash the charge sheet, which extensively falls an unproof and in order to use it as a instrument of harassment, the said charge sheet has been filed and even without applying mind, the police personnel has acted on the false complaint.
7. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, FIR has been registered and charge sheet has been filed. Further, the case is pending for trial and hence this petition, for quashing the proceedings does not arise at this stage, therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.
8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that only on account of continuous threat made by the petitioners, the deceased was driven to the extreme end of committing suicide, due to which the defacto complainant had lost her husband and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.
10. Admittedly, in the charge sheet, 18 witnesses were named and in the complaint given before the police, the defacto complainant had stated that her husband has given a leave letter to the General Manager, Baskaran, 1st petitioner and he did not receive the same and threatened the deceased to come out of the CITU Union, otherwise, he will dismiss the deceased from the company, further, 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner stated that they will also foist a case against the deceased.
11. In the FIR, there is no details regarding the date on which the husband of the defacto complainant has given the said alleged leave letter 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 to the 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner, wherein in the FIR, it is alleged that new;W ,ut[ Rkhh; 9 kzpf;F vd; fzth; kUj;Jtkidf;F te;J mth; fk;bgdpapy; G.M.gh!;fud; vd;gthplk; yPt[ byl;lh; bfhLf;f nghdjhft[k; th';fhky; jhk;guk; CITU vd;w r';fj;ij tpl;L btspna tUk;goa[k; tuhky; ,Ue;jhy; o!;kp!; bra;J Vw;fdnt fhzhky; nghd fz;bla;dh; nf!; rpf;f itf;f nghtjhf kpul;odh;/ ,d;Dk; HR og;ghh;l;bkz;;l; etkzp vd;gtUld; nrh;e;J kpul;oajh[t[k; mjdhy; mtUf;F kd csr;ry; Vw;gl;ljhft[k; ,Uf;f gpof;ftpy;iy vd;W Twpdhh; gyKiw nkw;go G.M. gh!;fud; kw;Wk; HR og;ghh;l;bkz;;l; etkzp vd;gth;fs; kpul;oajhf Twpdhh; ,d;W fhiy Rkhh; 06/00 kzpf;F vd; fzth; jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhz;lij nfs;tpgl;L mjph;rr; p mile;J vd; fzthpd; ,wg;gpw;F nkw;go egh;fspd; mr;rWj;jYk;. kpul;lYk; fhuzk; ,Ue;J nkw;go ,U egh;fspd; kPJ rl;l eltof;if vLj;J jz;lid tH';Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ However, according to the petitioners, they are the Department heads of the main company. Further, on going through the 161 statement given by the defacto complainant / wife, it is seen that on 16.03.2015, she was in the SSS Hospital, taking care of her son, who was admitted in the said hospital as inpatient. At that time, her husband had stated that when he proceeded to the petitioners to submit a leave letter with regard to his leave, the petitioners refused to receive the same and threatened to come out of the CITU union, otherwise, a false case would be lodged against him. Further the 2nd petitioner had also threatened him and the deceased further stated that 'vd;dhy; caph; thH KoahJ mth;fs; o!;kp!; bra;jhy; fld; mjpfkhf cs;sJ vg;go thH;tJ 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 vd;W Twptpl;L filrpahf 18/03/2015 k; njjp ,ut[ 21/30 kzpf;F mnj kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir bgw;W te;jhh;/ 19/03/2015 k; njjp mjpfhiy 06/00 kzpf;F vdJ kfd; fpncohh; v gputpd; Fkhh; vd;gth; bry;nghd; Kyk; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L mth; ,we;J tpll; jhf Twpdhh;/ nkYk; vdJ fztiu te;J ghh;j;j nghJ g[jpajhf fl;oa tPl;oy; g[litahy; J}f;F nghl;L ,we;J tpll; jhf bjhpe;jJ clnd vdJ fztiu ,wg;gjw;F J}z;oa $p/vk;/ gh!;fud; vr;/Mh;/ etkzp vd;gth;fs; kPJ eltof;if nkw;bfhs;SkhW kP"R{h; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ '
12. One Deivakumar, who is a co-worker, working as a car driver in Chandra CFS had stated that earlier, a theft had occurred in the said company and custom authorities have suspended the license, as such, since there was no work for any of the workers, they would simply attend the duty, but the company was giving them full salary till date. Also if they require any leave, they will enquire only with Mr.Sathyanarayanan. “One Saravanan and Kuppusamy and other operators were having a discussion that how long the company will be paying a salary without doing any work and the company may send us out, hence we have to start a union”. However, at that time, the said Kuppusamy did not come for duty and he was absent for ten days. Usually, when the defacto complainant attends for the work, he will be in intoxication. Since the said persons did not have any work, they were directed to go to Manali Gateway company and do 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 some work. The fork lift operators, Saravanan and Ramesh and others were pursuing to start a workers union. Hence on 18.03.2015, the South India company, General Manager, one Baskaran, and HR Department Navamani, came to the company, viz., Chandra CFS and had a meeting and according to the said Devakumar, usual advices were given to the workers. Some of the workers, who were working in Chandra CFS had stated to the GM that they will work only in Chandra CFS. At that point of time the said GM, 1st petitioner and Navamani had given an advice, since the license were revoked, they requested the other workers to work in the Gate way company itself. The workers decline to hear the same. Again, there was a meeting held in Chandra CFS and the same advice was given. At that point of time, Kuppusamy also joined in the said meeting and the said Deivakumar asked Kuppusamy why he is not active in his job, he said that since his children are not well, he is attending the hospital daily and taking care of them, further he is also not feeling well for the past one month and on 19.03.2015, he committed suicide. The same has been reiterated by other witnesses, namely, one Selvakumar.
13. It is the contention of the petitioners that when there was no Union originated and they were only in the process of starting a union and 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 the workers were paid full salary, there is no question of threatening the workers and there is no grievance to be played between the workers. Further, the said petitioners need not directly have any contact with the deceased, only the officer, namely, Sathyanarayanan is the authority for granting leave and giving permission for the persons to ratify.
14. In the statement given under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., by one Munirathinam, who is neighbour of Kuppusamy, it is seen that there are other reasons for his death. He averred that on 18.03.2015 around evening, he had alcohal and went to his house. One Baskar, Kuppusamy's elder brother was examined, he would submit that he is working in the said Chandra CFS as car driver and they were all working in the same office. As the license was suspended, they have joined in Gate Way CFS for two months and only on 18.03.2015, they joined the Kamavarpalayam office. He stated that Baskaran, G.M., and Navamani, H.R enquired for leave letter and the said Kuppusamy joined the office at 10.00 clock and left the office at 18.25. There was no other averment made by any other person regarding any threat by the petitioners.
13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
15. One Sathayanarayan, who is working as Assistant Manager was enquired, he had stated that on 18.03.2015 when he enquired for leave letter, Kuppusamay never disclosed anything regarding the threat issued by Baskaran or Navamani and did not give any leave letter. If at all any leave letter to be submitted, it is to be given only to the said person and he has not asked any such leave letter. The said Kuppusamy was absent from 09.03.2015 to 16.03.2015 and only on 17.03.2015, he came to office.
16. The statement of one Ramesh would show that only on 17.03.2015, Kuppusamy came for office and he was absent for ten days and when the Assistant Manager, enquired for leave letter, he had produced the same and on the next day also he came for the duty and on 19.03.2015, he died. Deivakumar also reciprocates the same before the police.
17. Further, there is a contradictory statement stated by Sumathi, defacto complainant, which differs from her own complaint, wherein she has averred as follows:- //// “/////vd; fzth; mij fhz;gpj;J kzyp fk;bgdpf;F ngha; ntiy nfl;Ls;shu;/ mjd; gpwF vdJ fztu; re;jpuh CFSy; fk;bgdpapy; ntiy bra;tjhf brhy;yp 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 khWjy; nfl;lhu;/ re;jpuh CFSy; vdJ mz;zd; bt';fnlcd; kfd; gpufhco;/ vyl;uPrdhft[k;. vdJ K:j;jhu; gh!;fh; oiutuhft[k; ntiy bra;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ fle;j 18/03/2015k; njjp jpUbthw;wpa{u; SSS kUj;Jtkidapy; vdJ kfd;. VdJ kfs; fPu;j;jdhita[k; ml;k[pl; bra;J rpfpr;irapy; ehd; cld; ,Ue;j nghJ. vdJ fztu; kzyp nfl;nt CFSf;F ntiyf;F brd;Ws;shu;/ mtu; v';f Cupy; cs;s CFSf;F khWjy; nfl;l nghJ. me;j fk;bgdpia jw;nghGJ f!;lk;!; epWtdkhdJ fk;bgdpapy; ,Ue;j fd;bla;du; brk;kuf;fl;il jpULnghdjhy; iybrd;ir epWj;jp itj;Js;sjhft[k;. ,';F ntiy ,y;iy vd;W brhy;ypas[ s ; hu;fs;/ 18/03/2015k; njjp fztUk; ngha; cs;shu;/ mjd;gpwF md;Wk; mtu; ntiy bra;atpy;iy/ ntiy bra;ahky; md;W ,ut[ 7.8 kzp mstpy; SSS kUj;Jtkidf;F te;J fk;bgdp kPlo; ';fpy; gh!;fUk;. etkzpa[k; eP a{dpadpy; ,Uf;fpwhah. mof;fo yPt[ nghLfpwha; vd;Wk; ,';F ntiy ,y;yhjjhy; eP kzypf;Fj;jhd; nghfntz;Lk; vd;W brhd;djhft[k.; ,jdhy; vdf;F ntiy ngha;tpLk; nghy; cs;sJ vd;W brhy;yp vd;dplk; mGjhu;/”
18.It is to be noted that on 02.02.2015, a Stop Work Notice was addressed by the CITU Union to the General Manager (South), Gateway Distiparks pvt., Ltd., stating that the said company has not come forward to accept the general request / terms and conditions, which was given on 05.12.2014 and the company is in the form of wrecking vengeance on the employees, who have given the acceptance to the general request / terms and conditions by joining the union, hence the said notice was issued. Further, there are several communications from the Union to the Management as well as from the Management to the Union and 2nd respondent.
15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016
19. From the perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, typed set, additional typed set filed by the petitioners, contention of the petitioners as well as the respondents and the statements given by the parties, it is clear that there is no instigation at any point of time by the petitioners to the defacto complainant for committing suicide. Also, the petitioners have not even uttered a single word to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In the absence of any iota of evidence to prove that the deceased had committed suicide only on the threat made by the petitioners, the charge sheet, which was filed against the petitioners cannot be sustained.
20. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the petitioners. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, [while dealing with the case where the offence was registered under 306 IPC] in the decision reported in 1955 Supp (3) SCC 438 [Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. And Another held as follows:
“3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all the events.....”
21. It is pertinent to point out that the said Sathyanarayanan, is the Assistant General Manager, responsible for the leave letter of the employees, therefore, it is proved that there is no direct contact between the petitioners and the deceased. Further, only a warning was given to the all the employees to attend the work regularly and the same cannot be termed as 'abetment' driving to an extreme end of committing suicide, as alleged by the defacto complainant. Moreover, the complaint and statements given by the defacto complainant as well as the witnesses does not establish any offence under Section 306 of IPC. For useful reference, Section 306 of IPC is reproduced hereunder:-
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 “Section 306 IPC :- 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 for ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” In the absence of instigation, on the part of the petitioners to the defacto complainant, the question of instigation / abetment will not at all arise.
22. Moreover, the word 'Abetment' has been defined under Section 107 of the Code and hence Section 107 is reproduced hereunder:-
“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” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under:
18/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” The instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. To satisfy the requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not the case where there was an act or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation.
23. 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. 19/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide, here is a case where there is no such involvement of the petitioner in the case of suicide.
24. Also, in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab LNIND 2021 BOM 65 (2020) 10 SCC 200 it is observed that mensrea is to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. 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. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
25. The words spoken by the petitioners whether it was serious which instigated the person to commit suicide should be seen, in this case, it is alleged by the defacto complainant that the petitioners are in the process of removing the deceased from the job and would implicate the deceased in a false case, which is already pending. The deceased was working for two days after taking leave for 10 days and the petitioners herein had a general meeting with all the labourers and they do not have any personal contact with any of the person. Further, leave and other aspects are taken care only by other person, namely, Sathyanarayanan and there is no material to show instigation on the part of petitioners to commit suicide. The witnesses have not stated anything that the deceased was found in the depressed state and deceased committed suicide due to the said threat made by the petitioners.
26. Taking into consideration the entire materials placed on record and carefully scrutinising and critically examining the facts, no charge can be made out against the petitioners for having instigated or abetted the 21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 victim to commit suicide. No charge can be framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC and it would be travesty of justice to compel the petitioners to face criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever to frame charges against the petitioners and the proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.9 of 2016 in Crime No.117 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri is quashed.
27. In view of the above, the present Criminal original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
25.08.2021 Index : Yes/No; Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order ssd To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri
2. State of Tamilnadu rep. By Inspector of police, E-3, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J., ssd Crl.O.P.No.6925 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3599 and 3600 of 2016 25.08.2021 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/