Delhi High Court - Orders
Nina Prasad vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr on 28 August, 2024
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024
NINA PRASAD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Mr. Nishaank
Mattoo, Mr. Rishabh Munjal, Mr.
Ishan K. Dubey and Mr. Amit
Babeshrai, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Y.R. Ansari, ASC (Crl.) for the
State with Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr.
Vasu Agarwal, Advocates with SI
Vipin Rathi, P.S.: Tigri, South Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 28.08.2024 CRL.M.A. 25641/2024 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.
W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 & CRL.M.A.25673/2024 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR No.97/2021 dated 01.04.2021 registered under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') at P.S.: Tigri, Delhi ('subject FIR') and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly, the petitioner has been implicated in the subject FIR and is being investigated for the offence under section 306 IPC based upon This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 1 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:09 an alleged suicide note left by the deceased, one Meenakshi Bidhuri, who is stated to have committed suicide on 03.09.2020. The suicide note has been extracted in-extenso in the subject FIR.
3. The suicide note narrates that the deceased was in a live-in relationship with one Sahil, who used to physically and mentally torture her on a regular basis. The note further recites that at Sahil's instance the deceased had taken loans from certain loan sharks, who had been pursuing her for repayment of the said loans.
4. Pertinently, the connection sought to be established between the petitioner and the deceased's suicide, as alleged in the subject FIR, is that sometime before the date of her suicide, the loan sharks had called the office of the deceased in order to pressurise her to repay the loans. The petitioner, who was the office manager at the establishment where the deceased used to work, is stated to have informed the deceased that her services would be terminated if the loan sharks continued calling the office. The suicide note also specifically records, that on the night immediately preceding her death, i.e. on the night of 02.09.2020, Sahil had beaten the deceased physically and had tortured her mentally, presumably in the context of demanding money.
5. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, in the suicide note, the deceased has said, that if the petitioner had not told her that her services might be terminated, she would still have been alive. This, according to the prosecution, is the essence of the allegation against the petitioner, for which the petitioner is being investigated for the offence under section 306 of the IPC.
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 2 of 9The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:09
6. Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner is a lady, about 65 years of age, and has been called to appear before the Investigating Officer about 03 years after registration of the subject FIR, vide notice dated 27.05.2024 issued under section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Cr.P.C.').
7. Mr. Khurana argues, that even if one assumes that the suicide note is genuine, on a plain reading thereof, it is clear that there is no allegation that the petitioner had in any manner provoked, incited, goaded or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide.
8. Counsel submits, that at worst what comes through in the suicide note is, that in performance of her duties as office manager in the establishment where the deceased was employed, and since the loan sharks who were pursuing the deceased had started calling the office and thereby harassing the people at the office including the deceased, the petitioner had communicated to the deceased that if such phone calls continued, her services may have to be terminated by the company.
9. Mr. Khurana has drawn the attention of this court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another 1 to point-out that in a very similar factual matrix, the Supreme Court has held as follows :
"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 1 (2010) 8 SCC 628 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 3 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:10 306 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.
"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.
"13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 4 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:11 proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused "14.As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Counsel has also drawn attention of the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana,2 of which the following extract is most relevant :
"16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above 2 (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 5 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:11 referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Mr. Khurana submits, that firstly, for an offence to be made-out under section 306 IPC, namely the offence of abetment of suicide must mean that the accused should have instigated the act of suicide, that is to say he must have goaded, urged-forward, provoked, instigated or encouraged a person to commit suicide.
12. Counsel submits, that as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the mens rea on the part of an accused is to be inferred based on the actual acts done; and if the acts on the part of This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 6 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:12 the accused are only such that the accused (at worst) intended nothing more than harassment, or if the acts were only an episode of snapshot anger, the case would fall short of the offence of abetment to suicide.
13. Mr. Khurana argues that since the Supreme Court has observed that if the act of the accused would not ordinarily be expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it would not be safe to hold an accused guilty of the offence under section 306 I.P.C. Counsel also draws attention to para 22 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan,3 which reads as follows :
"22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused are otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Furthermore, Mr. Khurana also points-out, that vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned ASJ (FTSC) (POCSO), South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, the petitioner has already been granted interim relief in a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C.
3(2021) 19 SCC 144 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 7 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:13
15. On a prima-facie consideration of the matter, issue notice.
16. Mr. Y.R. Ansari, ASC (Crl.) appears for the State on advance copy;
accepts notice; and seeks time to file status report.
17. Upon the petitioner taking requisite steps, let notice be sent to respondent No.2 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.
18. Let status report/reply be filed within 06 weeks of service;
response/rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
19. Learned ASC submits, that the petitioner has only been issued a notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C.; and has visited the police station a few times; but there is no likelihood of any harassment to the petitioner in the course of investigation.
20. Upon considering the allegations made in the subject FIR, and in particular, on a perusal of the suicide note allegedly left behind by the deceased, this court is of the prima-facie view that the ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC are not made-out in the present case, inasmuch as the only overt act alleged on the petitioner's part is that she had communicated to the deceased that if the loan sharks, who had been pursuing the deceased for refund of loan, continue to call the office and harass them, then the services of the deceased may be terminated. By no stretch of imagination can this be construed as an act intended to instigate, provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
21. In the above view of the matter, considering that the petitioner is a 65- year old lady and would inevitably face harassment if she is subject to This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 8 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:14 investigation even though the ingredients of the offence are prima- facie not made-out, further investigation in the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.
22. Re-notify on 04th December 2024.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J AUGUST 28, 2024/ak This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 2616/2024 Page 9 of 9 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 23:02:14