Simran vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10218 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2489 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Simran
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayer:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as FIR No.0065 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, relating to P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Opposite party no.4 due to ulterior motive and the police are trying to arrest the petitioner and are harassing the family members of the petitioner.

This Court had granted time to the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in the matter. Learned A.G.A. has produced a copy of the written instructions dated 04.04.2023 sent by the Senior Inspector of Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow wherein it has come out that the informant had lodged an FIR against the main accused. In this case one Sonam has been arrested by the police on 08.02.2023 and sent to jail. The Suicide Note left by the deceased mentions the name of the petitioner also. A copy of the Suicide Note has also been enclosed with the said instructions. It mentions the name of the main accused Sonam alongwith one Roli, Soni, Simran, Shivam, Shubham, Shyam Lal and others. The victim in this case was being blackmailed by a group of persons and one of the names of the persons in the said group was the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2021 SC 4764, wherein according to the petitioner it has been held that Simple act of reprimand of student for his behaviour or indiscipline by teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate good qualities of a human being in a student would not constitute abetment of suicide even though in the Suicide Note of the said student, he had mentioned the name of the teacher as having found deceased boy regularly bunking classes and scolding him. The Supreme Court observed that no further overt act had been attributed to the accused either in the FIR or in the statement of complainant, and no mention made in this regard even in the alleged suicide note under, the very element of abetment was conspicuously missing from allegations levelled in the FIR and therefore, the petition should have been entertained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Paragraph nos.21 and 22 of the said judgment which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"21. We may also refer to a two-judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. 6, wherein the judgement rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the following observations:-

"We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent

In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide.

22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 PC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased."

From the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court, it is evident that in the case of Narayan Malhari Throat (supra), there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of crime."

This Court has perused the Suicide Note. A copy of which has been enclosed in the instructions, it does not find the case of the petitioner to be fit to show interference.

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Competent Court.

Order Date :- 7.4.2023

N.PAL