. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying to quash F.I.R.
No.0213/2021 dated 16.09.2021 registered with Police Station, Palam,
Dist.Parbhani, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code (I.P.C.). The F.I.R. is lodged in relation to suicidal death of
one Narayan Pawar on 16.09.2021. The informant respondent No.2 is
widow of the deceased.
2488.2022APPLN.odt
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicant was a office
and deaf and dumb students. The applicant asked the deceased to
wife (respondent No.2) as peon and a cook, respectively. Respondent
employment to the deceased and his wife as promised. Respondent
No.2 states that she has two children from wedlock with the deceased.
consequence of which the deceased was forced to commit suicide. The
F.I.R. refers to suicide note, which was found on the person of the
deceased. English translation of the suicide note reads as under :-
Narayan Kishanrao Pawar"
2488.2022APPLN.odt
3. The complainant has stated that the suicide note is in
handwriting of her husband/deceased.
4. On the basis of the said F.I.R., respondent No.1 conducted
investigation in the matter and has filed charge-sheet under Section
173 of the Cr.P.C., vide Final Report No.95/2022 on 28.02.2022 before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palam and same came to be
registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 55/2022. The learned
Magistrate has thereafter committed the case to the learned Sessions
Court and accordingly, the case is pending in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, vide Sessions Case No.80/2022.
5. Learned counsel Shri Joydeep Chatterji for the applicant
would contend that the allegations in the F.I.R. and the suicide note are
grossly inadequate to remotely make out any ingredients of the offence
of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He,
therefore, states that the prosecution can not be sustained and deserves
to be quashed.
6. As against this, Shri G.A. Kulkarni, learned APP appearing
for respondent No.1 and Advocate Shri Girish Naik appearing for
respondent No.2 would contend that the deceased was falsely promised
2488.2022APPLN.odt
that he would be offered employment, if he donates his property to the
society of the applicant. Relying on the promise, the deceased donated
his land to the society of applicant in the year 2006 itself. However, the
applicant did not give employment to the deceased and his wife as
promised by him causing immense financial hardship to the deceased
thereby forcing him to take drastic action of committing suicide. They,
therefore, submit that the F.I.R. and criminal prosecution should not be
quashed having regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R., suicide
note and other material forming part of the charge-sheet.
7. Perusal of the charge-sheet prima facie demonstrates that
the deceased had indeed donated his land to Jyotiba Phule Seva Trust,
Nanded on 13.11.2006 vide a registered document titled as " Dan Patra"
i.e. Gift Deed. The applicant is a Secretary of the said Society. His name
is mentioned in the said document dated 13.11.2006 and he has
executed the said document on behalf of the society - Jyotiba Phule
Seva Trust. It is really unfortunate that the applicant has taken
agricultural land of a person making promise to offer an employment
and then resiled from his promise. Although, we find that the said act is
highly deplorable, the issue which falls for our consideration is as to
whether it is enough and sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 306
of the I.P.C. It is well settled that any act howsoever unethical or
undesirable or deplorable will not constitute any crime unless the act
2488.2022APPLN.odt
falls within four corners of provisions of law defining the offence. A
penal provision defining offence is required to be interpreted strictly.
With this backdrop of facts and legal principles, we proceed to deal
with the matter.
8. As noted above, there is substance in the allegation that
the applicant has obtained gift of immovable property belonging to the
deceased for his society. It is clearly stated that the property was
donated only on the promise that the applicant would grant
employment to the deceased and his wife. It is also clearly stated that
the applicant did not offer any employment to the deceased or his wife
as promised. We are however of the opinion that all these allegations
even if assumed to be true will not make out essential ingredients of
Section 306 of the I.P.C. The failure to keep his promise would not
amount to instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. It does not
appear that the applicant had any mens rea of causing suicidal death of
the deceased. We may also mention that the failure to keep promise
does not have any proximity with the date of unfortunate occurrence of
suicidal death of deceased. The gift deed is dated 13.11.2006. It is
obvious that promise to offer employment was made prior to that. The
tragic incident has occurred on 16.09.2021. There is a time lag of about
15 years in between.
2488.2022APPLN.odt
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ude
Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 as under :-
"16. ....... In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would
not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the
accused which compels the person to commit suicide;
and such an offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. ......"
10. Similar view is taken in the matter of Amalendu Pal Vs.
State of W.B. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 as under :-
"12. .... Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable."
11. Similar view is taken in the matter of Rajesh Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359 as under :-
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide. ....."
2488.2022APPLN.odt
12. In these judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly
laid down that the alleged wrongful act must have proximity with the
act of suicide. Thus, mere harassment without any positive act on the
part of the accused in proximity with the time of suicide will not make
out a case of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the
I.P.C.
13. Apart from the fact that proximity is clearly not established
in the present case, we also find that means rea to cause abetment of
suicide is also not established in the present case. Mens rea is an
essential element of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the
IPC. The act of deceased howsoever wrong it may be will not by itself
be sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC unless
the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified legal position in this
regard in the matter of M. Arjunan Vs. State reported in (2019) 3 SCC
315 in paragraph 7 as under :-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention
of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased
to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive language will
not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There
2488.2022APPLN.odt
should be evidence capable of suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased
to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the
accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
14. Similar view is taken in the matter of Gurcharan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200 as under :-
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.
To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under
Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be
something on record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance
of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the
deceased."
15. We may also refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has dealt with a catena of decisions dealing with
essential ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide. A F.I.R. was
lodged against appellant in the said matter for offence under Section
306 of the IPC. The allegations in the F.I.R were that the husband of the
informant was running a company doing business of interior designing,
engineering consultancy and architecture. According to the informant,
2488.2022APPLN.odt
wife of the deceased the appellant had not made payment for the work
done by company of her husband (deceased) for a period of over two
years resulting in financial pressure on the deceased. It was also alleged
that the deceased husband had visited the office of appellant on several
occasions making demand of payment of money. He had left a suicide
note mentioning that the persons named in the said note were not
paying legitimate dues of his company. The appellant had
unsuccessfully challenged the F.I.R. before the High Court. The
appellant then carried the order passed by the High Court to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this backdrop of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under :-
"62. .... Prima facie, on the application of the test
which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent
line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot
be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted
the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.
These observations, we must note, are prima facie at
this stage since the High Court is still to take up the
petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court
in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make
a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions
and jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section
482 CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position
that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to
be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not
meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with
reference to the contents of the particular FIR before
2488.2022APPLN.odt
the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a
prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible
for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and
the provisions of Section 306 IPC. The failure of the
High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position
where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for
regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was
clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is
entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under
Section 482 albeit at the interim stage."
16. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid judgment was
pertaining to grant of bail and not quashing of F.I.R. However, legal
principles with respect to essential ingredients of an offence punishable
under Section 306 of IPC have been reiterated in the said judgment by
following several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including
the judgments, we have referred to above.
17. In the facts of the present case undisputedly the land was
gifted by the deceased on a representation that employment will be
offered on 13.11.2006 and he has committed suicide on account of
failure on the part of the applicant to grant employment as promised
after a period of around 15 years on 16.09.2021. There is obviously no
proximity between the wrongful act and suicide committed by the
deceased. Likewise, there is nothing to interfere that the applicant did
2488.2022APPLN.odt
not offer employment as promised by him with an intention that the
deceased should commit suicide. The undisputed facts of the case
miserably failed to establish any mens rea. The continuation of criminal
prosecution against the applicant will, therefore, serve no purpose.
Since the ingredients of offence of abetment to commit suicide are not
made out, the criminal prosecution against the applicant deserves to be
quashed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.0213/2021 dated 16.09.2021 registered with Police
Station, Palam, Dist.Parbhani, for offence punishable under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code, Charge-Sheet No.95/2022 dated 28.02.2022
and Sessions Case No.80/2022 pending on the file of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed are hereby quashed against
applicant - Vitthal Sambhajirao Gutte.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
