The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition filed seeking of FIR under Section 306 of the IPC, observed that it is true that the administration of the department or an office requires certain hold and control of the employees by superiors, but it does not require humiliation and bullying at workplace.
Brief Facts:
The Court was hearing a plea seeking to quash an FIR filed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the FIR, the elder brother of the deceased stated that the deceased, employed as a Class IV employee in the Animal Husbandry Department and posted at the veterinary hospital in Rohera village, had committed suicide by hanging. A suicide note recovered from the scene alleged that, on the day of the incident, Balwan Singh, the accused and a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant at the same hospital, had insulted the deceased by calling him dishonest, using abusive language, and slapping him, which allegedly drove the deceased to take his own life.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there were allegations that the deceased was charging extra money from the general public to provide treatment to cattle. In this regard, the inhabitants of the village gave affidavits stating that the deceased also used to issue medical prescriptions without having any authority to do so. Further, it was submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR and alleged suicide note are taken to be correct at their face value, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has committed any offence, much less offence under Section 306 IPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the petitioner not only reprimanded the deceased but also abused and slapped him and used offensive language against him. It was further contended that the deceased failed to bear the said insult and ended his life by committing suicide, and while doing so, he left behind a suicide note wherein he specifically blamed the petitioner for his death. It was further argued that on the culmination of the investigation, a challan was presented, the trial Court framed charges under Section 306 IPC and the prosecution had already examined two witnesses.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision of the court in the case of Nipun Aneja Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the court explained as to when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official and further stated that mere mention of the name of certain individual in the suicide note, stating therein that he is responsible for his death cannot ipso facto be the sole basis for putting to accused to face trial or for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The court further referred to the suicide note and stated that in case the petitioner herein got complaints regarding working or corrupt practices adopted by the deceased, he should have reported the same to his seniors so as to proceed against the deceased in accordance with the law. However, apparently, no such complaint in writing was received by the petitioner with regard to the working of the deceased prior to the occurrence in question.
Further, the court observed that in case the petitioner was unhappy with the working of the deceased, he would have verbally reprimanded the deceased, but there was no occasion or reason for the petitioner to slap the deceased or to use abusive language against him, as is recorded in the suicide note in question and deceased took the drastic step as he was unable to bear the said humiliation.
The decision of the Court:
The court held that sufficient material is available to proceed further against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC, and the FIR was registered and challan presented by the police upon the basis of sufficient evidence.
Case Title: Balwan Singh vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh
Case No.: CRM-M-5607-2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ankur Malik
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Karan Garg and Mr. P.S. Sullar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
