Allahabad High Court
Babloo @ Chhatrapal Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR 2024:AHC:122379 Reserved on : 24.07.2024 Delivered on : 31.07.2024 Court No. - 74 1. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46399 of 2019 Applicant :- Babloo @ Chhatrapal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Lal Shukla,Jawahar Lal Pandey,J.L. Pandey And 2. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2316 of 2020 Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh,Rajiv Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brij Lal Shukla,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State in both above captioned applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Both above referred applications are decided by present common judgment since they are arising out of same charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No.0122 of 2019 under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. The applicants before this Court were named accused in above referred FIR lodged by complainant Vedpal on 11.02.2019, alleging that his father has committed suicide on 06.02.2019 and present applicants have committed offence of abetment of suicide.
3. Investigation was essentially based on an alleged suicide note of deceased. For reference same is extracted in its entirety hereinafter :-
"नकल सुसाइट नोट मृतक तेजवीर-ऊँ सच कहा है हजारो यार रिस्तेदार होते है। जब जर पास होता है। टूट जाता है गरीवी में जो खास रिस्ता खास होता है। चाहे भाई हो या बहन हो पडोसी हो या दूर का हो मेरी बस्ती मेरे लिये भगवान स्वरूप रही खूब मान सम्मान पाया अच्छी गुजर हुई। लेकिन अपनो से हार गया। सब कुछ उल्टा हो गया हमारा ही पडोसी बबलू से आठ लाख रूपये ले लिये जिनका साढे छः लाख ब्याज दे दिया + मूल दे दिया थोडे ब्याज को हाथ जोड लिये पहले तो मान गया लेकिन बाद में न तो अपनी मम्मी को मानी ना अपने भाई मनोज को मेरे पर मांगने लगा और पिस्टल की नोक पर मेरी दूकान मांगने लगा क्या करू बेबस हूं। मेरे पास कुछ भी नही रहा। एक मेरा ही भान्जा राजा अशोक बच्चो को ही बिकवाने की बात कह गया कभी घर बेचने की कहता है क्या करूं। छोटे छोटे बच्चे बड़े कहां रोड पर मारे मारे फ़िरेगे। वस्ती ने बहुत सहारा दिया मेरे लिए भगवान है। वस्ती वालो की मरजी बच्चो को गांव से ताडो या करके अपनी मर्जी मेरी तरफ से सभी गांव वासियों को राम राम जी आपका तेजवीर कोडली के लाला ने मेरे साथ विश्वास घात किया चार लाख देकर सात वीघे जमीन लिखवा ली कि प्लाट बेचते रहेगे पैसे देते रहेगे लेकिन बाद में मुकर गये क्या करता कमजोरी मार गई अब कुदरत करेगी सो होगा। लाला गौरव गुप्ता पुत्र ब्रजेश कुमार से अच्छी जान पहचान थी वरौल से० 49 में रहते थे उन्होने अशोक कुमार पुत्र चन्दरभान कोडली दिल्ली से मुलाकात कराई सब कुछ ठीक ठाक चलता रहा दस बीस हजार का लेन देन भी कर लेते थे सब कुछ ठीक था मेरी बैठ और सीधापन का फायदा उठा लिया मेरे साथ विशवास घात कर गये भगवान उनका भला करें। एक सूरजपुर का आशिफ पुत्र इस्माईल गवाह बन गया 2 लाख रूपये रिश्वत लेकर वह भी मुकर गया। तेजवीर लखनावली थाना हाजा से प्राप्त मृतक तेजवीर के सुसाइट नोट एवं मृतक तेजवीर के मूल पंचायतनामा एंव पीएमआर को विवेचना का एक हिस्सा बनाकर विवेचना में शामिल करके संलग्न सीडी में किया जाता है। सुसाइट नोट की छायाप्रति संलग्न है।"
4. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that on basis of above referred suicide note, essential ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide are absolutely not made out. He further refers judgments passed in Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659, Sanju Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl). No(s). 7284/ 2017, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan 2021 SCC Online SC 873, State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others, State of Kerala and others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others (2015)9 SCC 639, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another (2010)8 Supreme Court Cases 628, Kamlakar Vs. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC Online SC 1458, Prabhu Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police 2024 SCC Online SC 137, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 427, however, he mainly refers judgment of Prabhu Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and the relevant parts of both said judgments are reproduced hereinafter :-
"1. Prabhu Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police 2024 SCC Online SC 137:-
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that none of the ingredients to the offences set out in the charge-sheet are attracted.
Offence under Section 306 IPC
13. Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC and it reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing. --A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
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."
16. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
17. Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, Paragraph 12]
18. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that 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. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20]
19. 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. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]
20. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12-14]
21. The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628]
22. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the present case in question, even if we take the case as a whole and test the prosecution case on a demurrer, it could not be said that the actions of the accused instigated Kousalya to take her life or that he conspired with others to ensure that the person committed suicide or any act of the appellant or omission instigated the deceased resulting in the suicide.
2. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 427:-
I. Prima facie evaluation of the FIR and the grant of bail
51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] , "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari, J., observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25) "25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
52.Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] was specifically a case which arose in the context of a petition under Section 482 CrPC where the High Court had dismissed [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 568] the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the appellant-accused. In the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court, delivered by V.S. Sirpurkar, J., the test laid down in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] was applied and the Court held : (Madan Mohan Singh case [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , SCC p. 631, paras 10-11) "10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.""
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties have submitted that contents of above referred suicide note are sufficient to file charge-sheet against present applicants and to summon them. Deceased was put under tremendous pressure by applicants since he was not able to return the loan and was cheated and has left with no other option to take recourse of suicide.
6. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
7. The Court has to consider whether on basis of above referred suicide note, offence of abetment of suicide was prima facie made out against applicants or not. As referred in suicide note, the main allegation was against applicant Babloo @ Chhatrapal Sharma that deceased took loan from him of Rs. 8 lakh, which was substantially returned also, but the said applicant was harassing him to return entire amount or otherwise his house would be sold and he put a gun on his chest also.
8. So far as, other accused are concerned, they have been referred in the later part of suicide note that they have also cheated deceased in other transactions. The contents of above referred later part of suicide note does not disclose that applicants have harassed deceased to extent that he left with no other option but to commit suicide.
9. In the first part of suicide note, there is no averment that applicants have committed offence of abetment of suicide. That the applicants have intentionally added a person in doing of a thing or that they have undertaken a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide. The element of Mens Rea does not reflect from the contents of suicide note. Making demand to return rest of loan amount, itself would not be an offence of abetment of suicide. The mental situation of deceased due to non-repayment of loan as he was under crisis of money would does not itself indicate that repeated demand or using threatening tone was with Mens Rea.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of above referred Prabhu (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra) that in case, the basic ingredients of abetment of suicide are missing and contents of suicide note also does not corroborated the offence, the proceedings could be quashed by invoking inherent powers and as discussed above, the Court is of considered opinion that from suicide note, none of basic ingredients as referred above essential for an offence of abetment of suicide are made out. So far as ingredients of Section 506 IPC are concerned, since there is no averment of raising alarm and in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 INSC 683, even its ingredients are not made out.
11. Accordingly, by invoking inherent powers, the impugned charge-sheet arising out of Case Crime No.0122 of 2019 under Sections 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar as well as cognizance and summoning orders arising out of it are also hereby quahsed and both applications are allowed.
Order Date:- 31.07.2024 Pushpendra Pandey [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]