Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajnesh Sharma vs ) Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir ... on 20 August, 2024
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 02.05.2024
Pronounced on: 20.08.2024
Case:- CRM(M) No. 690/2022
CrlM No. 1265/2023
CrlM No. 1431/2022
CrlM No. 478/2023
Rajnesh Sharma, age 39 years, .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Bansi Lal,
R/o Chak Gotta, Lakhanpur,
Tehsil and District Kathua.
Through: Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate.
Vs
1) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Government of Jammu and Kashmir,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2) Senior Superintendent of Police,
J&K, Kathua.
3) Station House Officer,
Police Station Kathua.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Heard Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG for the respondents.
2 CRM(M) No. 690/2022CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
02. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor (Political Science) posted in the Government Degree College (in short, ―GDC‖), Kathua. The petitioner's posting as an Assistant Professor (Political Science) in GDC, Kathua dates back to 17.07.2017 and is also said to be the Head of the Political Science Department of the GDC, Kathua.
03. One of 1st semester students of GDC, Kathua, namely, Sanjay Kumar S/o Bodh Raj R/o Baghe Chak, tehsil & district Kathua committed suicide on 23.03.2022 at his home.
04. By reference to a purported suicide note said to have been penned down by said Sanjay Kumar in his own handwriting, an FIR no. 110/2022 for alleged commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered by the Police Station, Kathua, therein naming the petitioner, as an accused, resulting in his arrest and consequent suspension from service as well.
05. The suicide note which came to form the purported basis of registration of the FIR no. 110/2022 is reproduced here under:-
―Suicide Note - meri life mai bahot ache ache dost aay or unhone mera har waqat sath deyia especially NCC walo ne hamarey senior ka main bahut shukor guzar hoon ki unhoney hamey bahut sari opportunity di but Dosto aaj k baad mai apsi shyd kabi na mill saku kyuki college mai ek teacher hai jinka naam Rajnesh Sharma (Political Science) jin ki wajah se mein suicide commit kar raha Apka priya Miter Sanjay Miss u Mom, dad, Sister, Brothers and friends 3 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 aur chahta hu ki uss teacher par strictly action liya jaye inko mainey bahut samjhayia lekin inhome meri ek nahi suni I request to administration to strictly take action on Rajnesh sharma (Political Science) Thank u, Miss U apka friend sanjay.‖
06. The petitioner came to be admitted to an interim bail in terms of an order dated 08.04.2022 by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua which order later on came to be made absolute in terms of an order dated 12.04.2022. The petitioner even came to be put under suspension from duty in terms of an order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Authority concerned.
07. Finding himself exposed to suffer a criminal investigation and prospective prosecution in the face of said FIR no. 110/2022, the petitioner came forward petitioning this Court with present petition filed on 13.09.2022 invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereby seeking quashment of said FIR no. 110/2022 terming it as frivolous, baseless and misconceived against him amounting to an abuse of process of law pleading that the facts and circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, can implicate the petitioner with an accusation of abetment of suicide of Sanjay Kumar.
08. In his present petition, the petitioner has referred to the fact that he came to be taken by surprise upon his arrest on 23.03.2022 at about 05:00 PM for the reason which, at 4 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 that point of time, was unknown to him but later on stood revealed that one of the students of GDC, Kathua, namely, Sanjay Kumar was found dead in suspicious circumstances with a suicide note allegedly written by him therein mentioning the petitioner's name.
09. The petitioner has referred to the fact that he came to notify the shortage in attendance of said Sanjay Kumar on account of the fact that the petitioner was taking the Political Science classes of Semester 1st, 3rd & 5th students of GDC, Kathua and was under a duty to notify the shortage in attendance of the absentee students which included the deceased Sanjay Kumar.
10. The fact of shortage in attendance was duly notified by the petitioner on the College Notice Board on 15.03.2022 in which names of ninety one (91) students were enlisted with respect to attendance shortage bearing against them for the purpose of enabling the defaulting students to represent to the petitioner to show cause with respect to the shortage in attendance. The deceased Sanjay Kumar's name & roll No. 1509 was there mentioned in the said list of ninety one (91) students.
11. The petitioner further submits that after having made a review of the cases in which the defaulting students whosoever came forward with show of reasons for their 5 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 respective shortage, the list came to be revised to sixty four (64) students which came to be further displayed on 23.03.2022 and in both the lists, the name of Sanjay Kumar remained mentioned.
12. It is only this much from the petitioner's end which related to the deceased Sanjay Kumar and whatever was done by the petitioner in marking the shortage of attendance of the students including that of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, it was done by the petitioner under the mandate of Govt. Order No. 170-JK (HE) of 2021 dated 20.04.2021 and rule governing ―Choice Based Credit System Regulations‖ at the undergraduate level notified by the University of Jammu vide Notification dated 11.06.2016 and all being part of his duty without any thing personal against any student including Sanjay Kumar.
13. A bare perusal of the purported suicide note would show that the deceased Sanjay Kumar while on one hand was purportedly meaning to say that he was having very good friends who stood by him at every point of time and specially friends from NCC and seniors who afforded him an opportunity, on the other hand by reference to petitioner's name he simply meant to say he was meaning to end his life. The deceased did not pen down or hint out as for which alleged act of omission or commission on the 6 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 part of the petitioner, the deceased Sanjay Kumar was so fed up and felt instigated to see no escape except to end his life. It is pleaded and urged from the petitioner's end that if the deceased Sanjay Kumar could refer to the fact of good friends coming in his life, good seniors coming to assist him and affording him an opportunity then, surely, the purported fact/s or circumstance/s which was/were bothering the deceased Sanjay Kumar from the end of the petitioner ought to have found some semblance of reference and recital for the deceased Sanjay Kumar to urge in his suicide note that there shall be a strict action against the petitioner who despite all efforts made by deceased Sanjay Kumar to make the petitioner understand did not listen to anything from the deceased's end.
14. It is this text and context of this purported suicide note which formed the basis of registration of FIR no. 110/2022 and booking of the petitioner and from where a moot question comes forth rushing as to whether for any purported hurt/injury to psyche of a student, purportedly coming from an end of a teacher, any wrong step by a particular student to the extent of ending his/her life can be attributed to that particular teacher who, in the course of his duty as a tutor to the said student, is supposed to be well within his/her right to act, be it with softness or 7 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 strictness, as per demand of any given situation which in the present case is in the context of shortage of attendance of the deceased Sanjay Kumar which shortage he must have desired for the petitioner to right off so as to enable the deceased Sanjay Kumar to take examination for his qualification for next semester.
15. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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.‖
16. The abetment is the core component of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constituting abetment of suicide as a penal offence. The abetment per se has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which 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. A person committing a suicide is supposed to be equipped/arrested by a mindset or mindstate to end/terminate his/her life for reason or reasons which can 8 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 be singular, multiple and as varied as one can imagine going by the complex nature of psychological level functioning of a given person worked up by personal, social and economical circumstances obtaining with respect to person committing suicide.
18. Cause or causes to commit suicide may or may not, directly or indirectly, relate to a person with whom the person committing the suicide might have some background personal, professional or occupational relationship or equation, but whether by use of that cause or causes a person prompted or coaxed the other person, directly or indirectly, with a mindset to end his/her life is what would sustain a charge of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
19. Just because a person committing suicide was angered/annoyed/frustrated so on and so forth because of any act of omission or commission of and by another person thereby leading him/her to commit suicide will not, ipso facto, rope in the person with an accusation of commission of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as otherwise the parents, teachers, guides, superiors etc., would, perpetually and potentially, stand exposed, at any given point of time, to the ever lurking apprehension/fear of being charged for commission of section 306 of the Indian 9 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 Penal Code, 1860 as and when a person subject to their positional influence/authority would opt to end his/her life. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not kept in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with such a casual legislative understanding or perspective.
20. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has a very well defined core and that is a person to be accused of commission of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 actually intends the bearer/sufferer of the act/s of omission or commission from his/her end to end one's life and to achieve the said end objective the person accused as an abettor, in fact, engineers the circumstances for the person to be a victim to carry out self termination of his/her life.
21. When this Court examines the purported suicide note, the state of relationship/authority in which the petitioner was positioned vis-à-vis the deceased Sanjay Kumar by no stretch of imagination can be said or held that the petitioner actually intended the deceased Sanjay Kumar to venture to commit suicide, and which actually came to be so committed by the deceased Sanjay Kumar, by just naming Sanjay Kumar in the list of ninety one (91) college students facing shortage of attendance. All ninety (90) other students with shortages must have been in some state of 10 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 frustration, annoyance and exasperation against the petitioner but for that the petitioner could not be blamed and held accountable to have generated feeling of let down amongst them because it is their own act of avoiding attendance in the class that resulted in registration of shortage against them so as to render them suffer for their own act of omission or commission
22. Before proceeding further, it would be very apt to take due notice of the stated position of law with respect to section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 482 Cr.P.C.
23. In the case of ―Ram: Sia Ram vs State of Uttar Pradesh‖ [1975 AIR 175], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to delve into understanding of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defining abetment. In para 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has came to propound that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged would not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of section
107. It is observed that a person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invite, but unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the 11 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
24. In the case of ―Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh‖ [2001 AIR SC 3837], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to examine as to what would constitute an instigation to commit an act and the case under consideration was also relatable to section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In para 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to set out section 306 and section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in para 20 has referred itself to "instigation" to mean as follow:-
―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 a case where the accused had by his acts 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 may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.‖ In para 21 of the judgment (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as follows:-12 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
―In State of West Bangal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., [ 1994] 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in 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 transpires 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.‖
25. In the case of ―Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State of Madhya Pradesh‖ [2002 AIR SC 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to examine requirements of section 306 read with section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for sustaining an accusation against the person who came to be charged for commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and invoked proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment. In this case also, it was the suicide note wherefrom the accusation of commission of offence under section 306 IPC was being allegedly attributed on the basis of which the brother of the wife was booked for suicide committed by his brother-in-law (sister's husband). By referral to the observation in its earlier judgment ―Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh‖ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to quash the charge of commission of offence under section 306 of 13 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused bother of wife of the deceased.
26. In the case of ―Randhir Singh & Anr vs State of Punjab‖ [2004 (13) SCC 129], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 13 came to read abetment as involving a mental process instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing and has emphasized that more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has put the courts on guard with an observation that 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. In the case of ―Netai Dutta vs Stae of West Bengal‖ [2005 (2) SCC 659], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the scope of exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-à- vis a criminal case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Para 5 and 6 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
―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 14 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 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 things, 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".
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.‖ The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found the case to be a fit case where extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be invoked for quashing the criminal proceedings.
28. In the case of ―Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [2009 16 SCC 605], paras 14, 15 & 16 are relevant to be cited for the sake of serving the present judgment. Paras 14, 15 & 16 are reproduced hereunder:-
―14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who ―instigates‖ any person to do that thing. The word ―instigate‖ is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar 15 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 . Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that 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. Where the accused had, by his acts 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‖ may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
15. Thus, to constitute ―instigation‖, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by ―goading‖ or ―urging forward‖. The dictionary meaning of the word ―goad‖ is ―a thing that stimulates someone into action:
provoke to action or reaction‖ (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); ―to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts‖ (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly, ―urge‖ means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to ―goad‖ or ―urge forward‖ the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an ―instigation‖ may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
16. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect.16 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.‖
29. In the case of ―Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat & Anr.‖, [2010 (8) SCC 628] while dealing with a case of quashment of FIR registered for alleged commission of offence under sections 306 & 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Paras 8, 9 & 11 called for reference which are reproduced as under:-
―8. It is on this that Shri Tulsi contended that all this is absolutely absurd. If a person writes a suicide note on 4.2.2008, he had no business to send the suicide note to High Court and keep a copy thereof in the house. Learned Senior Counsel said that even if all this is accepted as it is, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has committed any offence or that any offence could be spelt out from the said suicide note or the FIR much less offence under Sections 306 and 294, IPC. 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 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. 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. 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 out the suicide of the concerned person 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 17 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 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.
9. 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 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 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 ], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.
11. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note. It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant/accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the concerned person by his acts, words etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short. We have already explained that the baseless and irrelevant allegations could not be used as a basis for prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, we have already considered Section 294 (b) IPC also. We have not been able to find anything. Under such circumstances, where the FIR itself does not have any material or is not capable of being viewed as having material for offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 18 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 Suppl. 1 SCC 335], it would be only proper to quash the FIR and the further proceedings.‖
30. In the case of ―S. S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.‖ [(2010) 12 SCC 190], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again had the occasion to delve into understanding of essential ingredients of accusation with respect to offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28 and 29 comment to be reproduced hereunder:-
―16. In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC, it is important to carefully examine the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The said section is reproduced 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.‖
17. The word ―suicide‖ in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. ―Sui‖ means ―self‖ and ―cide‖ means ―killing‖, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
19. This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide has been abrogated.
20. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
21. ―Abetment‖ has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which 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 19 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 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:
―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.‖
31. 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.
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.
32. In the case of ―Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs State of West Bengal‖ [2010 (1) SCC 707], In para 15 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has registered a caveat for the criminal courts to bear 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 and that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of 20 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
33. In the case of ―M. Mohan vs State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police‖ [2011 AIR SC 1238], in the context of application of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR registered for alleged commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt extensively with the understanding of the subject. Paras 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 & 71 are reproduced herein for the sake of confirming the understanding of the interplay of proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the matter of quashment of accusation under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:-
―38. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self- killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
39. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of I.P.C.
40. 'Abetment of a thing' has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which 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 21 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
―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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.‖
45. 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.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
47. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others (2010) 10 SCC 361 , this court has held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint.
48. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2010 ) 8 SCC 628, this Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
53. This Court had an occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. S tate of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , this Court summarized some categories of cases where the High Court in its inherent power can and should exercise to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;22 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
54. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736 , according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
―(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like‖.
55. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 , observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.
56. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 , a three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:-
―.....In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court, or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of 23 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 the inherent power by the High Court. Such cases would necessarily be few and far between. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case would undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the invoking of the revisional power of the High Court is impermissible.‖
57. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692 , observed in para 7 as under:
―The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.‖
59. In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 and Lala Jairam Das v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 94 the Judicial Committee has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old Code which is equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. gave no new powers but only provided that already inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till date.
60. In Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336 , this court observed as under:_ ―... [E]very High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice .... Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its powers ....‖
63. In Kurukshetra University and Another v. State of Haryana and Another (1977) 4 SCC 451 , this court observed as under:24 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
―Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Thus, the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot quash a first information report more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no proceeding at all is pending in any Court in pursuance of the said FIR.‖
64. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in (1992) Suppl.1 SCC p.335, this court had an occasion to examine the scope of the inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police and laid down the following rule:
[SCC pp. 364-65, para 60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60].
―The sum and substance of the above deliberation results in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.‖
65. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others (supra), this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers 25 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.‖
66. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others (2000) 2 SCC 636 , this Court observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a 26 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil in nature.
67. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Another (2004) 6 SCC 522 , this court observed as under:-
―Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the 27 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
68. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 , observed thus:-
―It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/ continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.‖
69. In Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 7 SCC 495 , this court observed as under:-
―There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned propositions of law. However, it is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the first information report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing.‖
70. In State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others 2010 (11) SCC 226 , this court observed that the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is vide and they require care and caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principle and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. The court further observed that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is up to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Code.
71. In the light of the settled legal position, in our 28 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against them. The High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the appellants who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial.‖
34. In the case of ―Praveen Pradhan vs State of Uttranchal & Anr.‖ [(2012) 9 SCC 734] while dealing with the case of petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against reinforced the position of law and paras 14 & 15 are relevant to be cited and are reproduced hereunder:-
―14. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 ; Surender v. State of Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375 ; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457 ; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923 .)
15. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.‖ 29 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
35. In the case of ―Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs Madan Lal Kapoor‖ [2013 3 SCC 330], para 23 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is worth reminder and reference while exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Para 23 is reproduced hereunder:-
―23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:--
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.‖
36. In the case of ―Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.‖ [(2021) 2 SCC 427], the Hon'ble 30 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 Supreme Court of India had the occasion to examine afresh the provision of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the light of application of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 though in the context of grant of bail involving accusation of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Paras 47, 52, 55 & 56 are reproduced hereunder:-
―47. 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 judgements of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 , Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 , Kishori Lal v. State of MP (2007) 10 SCC 797 (―Kishori Lal‖) and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52 . In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 , Justice Mukundakam Sharma, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:
―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.‖ 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 (supra), ―literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything‖. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 , a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, observed:31 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
―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. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 781 , a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8 August 2017. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband.
This resulted in him having to work from 10 AM to 10 PM and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
55. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years ―having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him‖. The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his ―money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues‖. Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of 32 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 the IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage since the High Court is still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439; The High Court was clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage.
56. The petition before the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima facie been established. As a consequence of its failure to perform its function under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider the appellant's application for bail. In considering such an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power.‖
37. In the case of ―Kanchan Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.‖ [2021 AIR (SC) 4313], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again reexamined the position of application of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-à-vis accusation of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Para 10 is reproduced hereunder:-
33 CRM(M) No. 690/2022CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
―10. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material on record and examined the facts of the case on hand. Except the statement that the deceased was in relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about the calls which were being made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of S.I. Manoj Kumar recorded on 05.07.2018. In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police post and complained against the deceased who was continuously calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever.‖
38. In the case of ―Mahendra K C vs State of Karnataka‖ [2021 AIR (SC) 5711], the Hon'ble Supreme of India has dealt with the source and scope of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Paras 19, 20 & 21 are reproduced hereunder:-
―19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issue such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well settled. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 , a two judge Bench of this Court, observed that:
―8. [...] While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to 34 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.‖ These principles emanate from the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC 155 .
In Surendra Kori (supra), this Court observed:
―14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.‖
20. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court laid down the principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR. Justice Ratnavel Pandian laid down the limits on the exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR and observed:
―102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.35 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.‖ The judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been recently relied on by this Court in State of Telangana v.
Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 .
21. Based on the above precedent, the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to 36 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 quash the FIR instituted against the second respondent- accused should have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to briefly discuss the law on the abetment of suicide to determine if a prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC has been made against the respondent- accused.‖
39. In the case ―V. P. Singh Etc. vs State of Punjab & Ors.‖ [2022 (8) SCR 847], in this case involving suicide by a student allegedly related to a reprimand for misconduct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has referred itself to observe as under:-
―While we appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra position would create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educational institution.‖
40. In the case of ―Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors.‖ [2024 AIR SC 218], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again dealt with the scope of quashment of FIR registered for alleged commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Paras 9, 10 & 11 are reproduced hereunder:-
9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide.37 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.
10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
11. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.‖
41. In the case of ―Geo Varghese vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.‖ [2021 AIR (SC) 4764], the suicide of student was attributed to the physical training teacher and the student who ended his life was a 9th class student which resulted in registration of FIR under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on account of a two page suicide note left by the deceased 9th class student. After having suffered refusal in seeking quashment of the FIR against him from the High Court of Rajasthan dismissing his petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The FIR registered against the teacher was quashed by upsetting the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan. The said case squarely covers the present case. 38 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023
42. Keeping in view of the aforesaid position of law coming forth from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India when this Court examines the suicide note and registration of the FIR based thereupon against the petitioner, this Court comes across with a salient aspect that the registration of the FIR on the basis of the said suicide note is actually not accompanied with a complaint by a family member of the deceased Sanjay Kumar that prior to committing suicide by him, deceased Sanjay Kumar had shared his distress against the petitioner for purported acts of omission and commission at the end of the petitioner which lead Sanjay Kumar to end his life by committing suicide. This points out to the fact that even the family members of the deceased Sanjay Kumar were caught unaware about the mind-state of the deceased Sanjay Kumar. Just because Sanjay Kumar left a suicide note bearing a reference to the petitioner cannot mean that the petitioner is to be left to suffer self-condemnation for all time to come by finding himself implicated in a criminal case originating on the basis of FIR in question.
43. If this Court were to test the soundness of the registration of the FIR against the petitioner by purported suicide note of the deceased Sanjay Kumar fingering towards the petitioner as a teacher making the deceased Sanjay Kumar 39 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 to end his life for unstated/unspelled act of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner, then by the same run of logic if the present petitioner, being frustrated by the fact of registration of FIR against him and his consequent suspension from the service and purported disrepute brought upon him by his implication in the FIR, were to end his life then would that act of suicide on the part of the petitioner should result in booking of the Police, the College Administration or for that matter the family of the deceased Sanjay Kumar in alleged commission of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The answer would be a big ―No‖. Therefore, by the same logic, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the suicide committed by his student deceased Sanjay Kumar so as to get booked under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
44. Thus, this Court finds it is a fit case wherein the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ought to be exercised to quash the FIR No. 110/2022.
45. Accordingly, this Court holds FIR No. 110/2022 registered by the Police Station, Kathua against the petitioner as an abuse of process of law without having any basis to book the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under 40 CRM(M) No. 690/2022 CrlM No. 1265/2023 CrlM No. 1431/2022 CrlM No. 478/2023 section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and, therefore, quashes the same.
46. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
47. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to Police Station, Kathua for the sake of compliance and record.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 20.08.2024 Bunty Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes Bunty Kumar 2024.08.21 19:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document