Recently, the Bombay High Court discharged an accused from charges under section 306 and section 420 of the IPC in a Criminal Revision Application challenging the rejection of discharge.
HC Bench observed that, "....There has to be a connection between the acts alleged and the consequences. No doubt the consequence is not only death but there are the acts alleged against the Applicant…she insisted on him promoting that Company, both of them have fallen in love with each other, both of them have stayed at various places but can it be said that all these acts are instrumental for the commission of the suicide? For intentionally aiding, something more is required”.
Brief Fact
The case involves the suicide of Manish Malhotra, an independent director at ‘Red Entertainment’ who consumed sodium cyanide, the source of which remains unknown. Although Malhotra’s relationship with the applicant, Reema Gupta, began professionally, it became personal. In three emails, Malhotra exonerated Gupta, but his uncle, Navin Kumar, filed an FIR accusing her of abetting suicide and cheating after settling their dues. The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against Gupta’s father on August 19, 2013. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected a discharge application for Gupta on April 10, 2015, with the court noting that Gupta allegedly induced Malhora to join her business and failed to pay him for his work.
Contentions of Applicant
The counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant and the deceased, Manish Malhotra, were acquaintances in the entertainment industry. The applicant, running "Red Entertainment Private Limited," induced Malhotra to join her business. They agreed on April 1, 2010, and developed a personal relationship.
It is further submitted by the counsel that Malhotra later felt cheated and discovered that the applicant had started a relationship with Rishabh Tandon. The applicant began avoiding Malhotra, who became distressed when she went to celebrate Valentine’s Day with Tandon instead of him. Later, Malhotra committed suicide by consuming cyanide at his flat in Lokhandwala, with his servant present. The counsel argued that the applicant received two chat messages on 20/02/2012, where the deceased had expressed his last request not to blame the applicant for his action.
Observation of Court
Bombay HC Bench observed that the statements showed both parties were involved in a joint business and a romantic relationship, even planning to marry. Despite disputes and the applicant retracting from the marriage, the court remarked, “It indicates their business relationship and it transformed into a love relationship. It is true, that both of them have intruded in their private life. They have stayed together and toured together to foreign countries together. Even the Applicant was pregnant. It was terminated in September 2011. However, their relationship is not converted into marriage for reasons best known to them”.
Regarding the cheating allegation, the court stated that while the application induced the deceased to join her company, this does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC due to the absence of property delivery.
The court further added, “Lastly, the deceased has committed suicide. But I think all these allegations fall short of making out the case under Section 306-Abetment of suicide. There has to be a connection between the acts alleged and the consequences. No doubt the consequence is not only death but there are the acts alleged against the Applicant…she insisted on him promoting that Company, both of them have fallen in love with each other, both of them have stayed at various places but can it be said that all these acts are instrumental for the commission of the suicide? For intentionally aiding, something more is required”.
It was observed by HC Bench that the connection between the alleged acts and the suicide was deemed insufficient for intentional aiding under Section 107 IPC.
Decision of Court
High Court decided to allow the revision application and discharge the applicant from an offence under Section 306 and 420 of IPC stating, "Merely on account of the dispute, it cannot be said that it can be abetment. This Court has taken this view after perusing the statements and panchnamas on one hand and considering the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code on the other hand".
Case Title: Reema Premprakash Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra
Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Aishwarya Kantawala, Jayesh Bhosale, Diya Jayan
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Pranita Pramod Hingmire
Coram: Justice S.M. Modak
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
