Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Abhishek And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 28 April, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5616/2016
1. Abhishek S/o Late Shri Rajendra B/c Mahajan, R/o
Haldiya Bhawan, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. Virendra Haldiya S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Haldiya, R/o
41, Sunder Nagar, Girdhar Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Shir Naresh Mohil S/o Shri Satyanarain Mohil B/c Rajput,
R/o E-55, Sidharth Nagar, Girdhar Marg, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5518/2016 Gaurav Khandelwal S/o Shri Prakash Chand Khandelwal, R/o 802, Somdutt Landmark, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Naresh Kumar Mohil S/o Satya Narain Mohil B/c Rajput, R/o 139, Power House Road, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta & Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma with Ms. Sneha Dabla, Mr. Tanay Jain.
For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP.
For Complainant : Mr. Nitin Bhandari.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
28/04/2020
1. Petitioners have preferred these Criminal Misc. Petitions aggrieved by Order dated 13.10.2016 passed by Addl. District & (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (2 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the Order dated 11.08.2016 passed by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur whereby protest application filed by the complainant was allowed.
2. In brief, the factual matrix of the case are that the deceased on 03.01.2013 gave a Parcha-bayan that he is running a departmental store, the building of which was taken on lease for three years and that petitioners wanted to get the shop vacated and for that purpose they were harassing the deceased. They harassed and also threatened to kill the deceased, as a result of which, deceased poured the kerosene and set himself on blaze and had died after more than two months of the incident. Police after due investigation submitted a negative final report observing that no case is made out against the petitioners of abetting the deceased to commit suicide. It was also mentioned in the report that the deceased was not paying the rent and for that purpose, he was levelling false allegations against the petitioners. A protest application was filed by the complainant and the Court below directed the SHO to further investigate the case and submit the report.
3. Complainant approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Petition No.256/2014 and the High Court vide Order dated 18.12.2015 transferred the investigation to CID (CB). In due compliance of the Order dated 18.12.2015, CID (CB) conducted the detailed investigation and submitted a negative final report observing that the earlier investigation is correct and no offence is made out against the petitioners. It was also mentioned that the suicide note was presented to the police after seven months of the (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (3 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] incident. It was also observed by CID (CB) that the suicide note was prepared much prior to the date of incident and that the suicide note was not sent to any of the persons to whom the same was addressed. A protest petition was filed before the Court below. Court after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses, took cognizance under Section 306 of IPC vide order dated 11.08.2016. The cognizance order was challenged before the Addl. Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur but the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had given their property on rent to the deceased and they had a right to collect their rent. Their demanding of the rent cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. It is also contended that petitioners neither abetted the commission of the offence, nor did they do anything in order to facilitate the commission of the act. It is contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that both Investigating Agencies independently reached to the same conclusion that the main FIR is false and that the petitioners did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
5. It is contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the sole motive behind lodging of the FIR was that the family members of the deceased may continue to get the rent and premises without paying any rent. It is also contended that the actual dispute pertained to non-payment of rent which dispute is of a civil nature. It is also contended that rent of nine months was outstanding. The rent was Rs.53,550/- per month and the outstanding amount was more than Rs.4.5 lacs which the deceased was not in a position to pay and the possibility of his committing suicide on account of indebtedness cannot be ruled (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (4 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] out and that there were other debts also on the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased was in a habit of lodging false complaints. He earlier also lodged an FIR No.522/2005 in which police submitted negative final report. It is contended that continuation of proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of Court and would cause grave injustice to the petitioners who had only demanded the rent which was due for a period of nine months and which was to the tune of more than Rs.4.5 lacs.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Mahendra Singh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 731"
which was a case where the deceased gave following statements:
"My mother in-law and husband and sister in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
Honb'le Apex Court held that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
7. Counsel has also placed reliance on "Ramesh Kumar vs. State of of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618" where the husband permitting the following words to his wife:
"You are free to do whatever you wish and go where ever you like." Thereafter, the wife of the appellant committed suicide.
Hon'ble Apex Court examine the meaning of 'instigation' and held that the words uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (5 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
8. Reliance has also been placed on "State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 73". The Apex Court 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 her life by committing suicide. The Court observed that it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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.
9. Reliance has also been placed on "Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) Scale 24", wherein the Apex Court held that 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 of 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 committed suicide.
10. Reliance has also been placed on "Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 2659 (weekly)" which is a case where there was pressure on work of (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (6 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] the deceased and the accused who was a superior officer has rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The Apex Court held that merely because a superior officer has assigned some work and has rebuked and harrassed the deceased that cannot be considered similar action against such superior officer. The Apex Court quashed the proceedings. 11 Reliance has also placed on "Gulab vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2019 (2) Bombay CR (Crl.) 792" wherein it was observed that intention is one of the main ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. When a person owes from the other and for the recovery thereof, initiates legal proceedings, by no stretch of imagination, one could infer that the person initiating such proceedings, would instigate his debtor to commit suicide. By doing so, the wrong doer is going to get nothing but to fact music. The Apex Court observed that in such situation, continuation of proceedings would tantamount of abuse of process of law. The FIR was quashed.
12. Reliance has also placed on "Girish Bhaurao Salunke & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Application Nos.33 and 497 of 2018" decided by High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) on 07.03.2018 which was a case where the teacher scolded the students as was concerned about the attendance of the students in the tuition classes. The deceased was not sustaining the pressure of studies. It was observed that if the student is not attending the class and then if the teacher scolds her, it would be for the betterment of the student. Such scolding or words of advice are not synonymous to "incitement and instigation". The words "incitement or instigation" would (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (7 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] literally mean to provoke or urge or bring about the persuasion to do a thing. When such advice would be for the betterment of the career of the student, then there is clear absence of mens rea to commit offence under Section 305, 306 or 107 of IPC. FIR was quashed.
13. Reliance has also placed on "Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2010 AIR SCW 5101" which was a case where the deceased as driver working under accused officer, allegedly committed suicide due to harassment and insulting behaviour by the accused. There was no indication in note that accused ever intended that his driver should commit suicide. The Apex Court observed that merely because deceased had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide, same would not be ground to base charge under Section 306 of IPC. Proceedings were quashed.
14. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the misc. petitions. It is contended that the deceased in his Parcha- Bayan specifically mentioned that he is being harassed by the petitioners. It is also contended that the deceased had taken the premises for opening a departmental store. Commercial electric connection was not available on the premises, as a result of which deceased could not run his departmental store and was indebted and also could not pay the rent. It is also contended that petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision. Second revision is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and present misc. petitions cannot be entertained. It is further contended that from the suicide note, it is specifically revealed that the deceased was being threatened and was under depression (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (8 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] and committed suicide because of the harassment caused by the petitioners.
15. I have considered the contentions.
16. The admitted position is that police after due investigation submitted a negative final report. The investigation was transferred to CID (CB) and it also submitted negative final report. The conclusion of the Investigating Officer was that the deceased was indebted and unable to pay the rent and that the petitioners did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide. From the material available on record, it is revealed that the property in dispute belonged to mother of Abhishek (Petitioner No.1) in Criminal Misc. Petition No.5616/2016. It was given on rent @ Rs.51,000/- per month on 11.05.2011. The rent increased to Rs.53,550/- and rent of about nine months was due. Demand of rent by the landlord and requesting the tenant to vacate the premises if he is not in a position to pay the rent does not tantamount to instigating the tenant to commit suicide. It is quite natural that when a rent of more than Rs.4.5 lacs is outstanding, the landlord would press upon the tenant to pay the rent.
17. Gulab vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supra) was a case where recovery of proceedings were initiated. It was held that by no stretch of imagination, one could infer that the person initiating such proceedings, would instigate his debtor to commit suicide.
18. Landlord whose rent is outstanding to the tune of more than Rs.4.5 lacs would never instigate his debtor to commit suicide as by doing so, the wrong doer is going to get nothing. Courts below have not gone into the definition of abetment and have failed to take into account the reasons given by the Investigating Officer and CID (CB) in submitting negative final report. Demand of rent (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) (9 of 9) [CRLMP-5616/2016] and asking the tenant to vacate the premises if he is not in a position to pay rent can by no stretch of imagination and cannot be considered as abetment or instigation and continuation of proceedings in such matter would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.
19. In view of the above, misc. petitions deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Proceedings pending before the Courts below are quashed.
20. Stay applications stand disposed.
21. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J CHANDAN (Downloaded on 29/04/2020 at 08:35:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)