Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Nalini Ranjan Bal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 26 July, 2022

                                                                             Page |1




26.07.2022

                                        CRR 373 of 2011

                                       Nalini Ranjan Bal
                                              Vs.
                                The State of West Bengal & Anr.


                  Mr. Kallol Mondal,
                  Mr. Krishan Ray,
                  Mr. Souvik Das,
                  Ms. Anamitra Banerjee.
                                                     ... for the Petitioner


                  Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Ld. APP,
                  Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate.
                                                           ... for the State


                  The instant application is filed under section 482 of the Code of

             Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the First Information

             Report being Hasnabad P.S. Case No.355 of 2009 dated 26/11/2009

             under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.


                  Genesis of the case is the written complaint dated 26/11/2009

             written by the Opposite Party No.2/de-facto complainant addressed to

             the Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station. It is the case of the

             Opposite Party No. 2 that his younger daughter, Ankita Halder, was a

             student of Barunhat High School. In the course of Madhyamik test

             examination on geography, the Petitioner herein rebuked and

             humiliated the said Ankita. She came back to home and narrated the

             incident to her parents. Later in absence of her father, Opposite Party

             No. 2, in the residence, she committed suicide by hanging herself. With

             heavy heart the Opposite Party No.2 submitted the written complaint in

             Hasnabad Police Station. On the basis of the written complaint, formal
                                                                  Page |2




F.I.R was drawn up and numbered as Hasnabad P.S. Case No. 355 of

2009 dated 26/11/2009 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.


     It is the case of the Petitioner that on the day of the examination of

geography, as mentioned in the written complaint, the Petitioner was

one of the invigilators. Hefound that the deceased Ankita was copying

her answers from a piece of paper which she brought before entering

into the examination hall. The Petitioner objected to that act and took

her answer sheet along with the piece of paper and submitted the same

to the Principal of the institution with a note. The Petitioner did the

aforesaid act in discharge of his official duty without any intention to

instigate or to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the

Petitioner filed the instant application praying for quashing of the

unjustified prosecution.


     Mr. Mondal, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that to

constitute offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,

intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate

commission of suicide is imperative. Anything short of these

requirements would nullify the charge of abetment. In the instant case,

the Petitioner was invigilator in the examination hall. The deceased

was indulged in unfair practice which, the Petitioner, in discharge of

his official duty and as a part of disciplinary measure, resisted. Under

no circumstance such an act of the Petitioner can be said to abet or to

instigate committing suicide. A prosecution like the instant one would

not only discourage the Petitioner but also all the invigilators to

discharge the task of invigilation in proper and fearless manner. The
                                                                        Page |3




ingredients of abetments are altogether absent in this case. Mr.

Mondal explained the principle of law with reference to the following

cases:


         Annakali Dutta & Ors. vs. the State [1990 SCC Online, Cal 80],

         Sanju alias Sanjay Singh vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371],

         Subha Narayan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2006) 3 CHN
         651],

         Bishnu Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal [2007 (3) CHN
         754],

         Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat [(2010)8 SCC 628]

         Sri Swapan Roy vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [2016 SCC
         Online Cal 1790]

         State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu [(2019) 10 SCC 188]

         Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2021 SCC Online
         SC 873].


         In nutshell, Mr. Mondal prayed for quashing of the impugned

F.I.R.


         Per contra Mr. Mahato appearing for the State submitted that

statement of the students, recorded under section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure who were present on the spot, reveal that the

deceased was rebuked, chastised and insulted by the Petitioner for her

act of copying. This caused mental stress and trauma goading her to

commit suicide. According to Mr. Mahato, there are incriminating

elements. The F.I.R, on the face of it, reveals commission of the alleged

offence which does not warrant quashing of the F.I.R. According to him,

the instant petition is liable to be rejected.


         I have heard rival submissions.
                                                                        Page |4




     Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code states:

     "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits

     suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,

     shall   be    punished    with         imprisonment    of   either

     description for a term which may extend to ten years, and

     shall also be liable to fine."


     Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment in the

following terms:


     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.

                                      ***

Page |5

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.

Conjoint reading of section 107 and section 306 yields an

interpretation that there must be a suicide and that there must be direct

involvement of the accused person or persons in the commission of that

suicide in order to attract punishment for offence under Section 306 IPC.

It must be established that the accused person/persons instigated and

incited the victim, by his or their positive act, to commit suicide. The

accused must have 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 in which case instigation may

have been inferred, as observed by the Supreme Court of India in

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618. Earlier, in

State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 it was observed by the

Supreme Court of India:

"17....We may add here that the Court should be extremely

careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case

and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of

finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in

fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it

transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was

hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and Page |6

differences in domestic life quite common to the society to

which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and

differences were not expected to induce a similarly

circumstanced individual in a given society to commit

suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied

for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the

offence of suicide should be found guilty."

In S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 the

Supreme Court of India held:

"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 mensrea

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."

In Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan 2021 SCC Online SC 873,

the facts and circumstances are similar to the present case. In that case

the Physical Training Instructor of the school who was also a member of

the disciplinary committee of the school, rebuked and insulted in Page |7

presence of others a fourteen years old boy who was student of class 9th

of that school. He came back home and committed suicide leaving a

suicide note naming the said teacher. The High Court refused to quash

the F.I.R. The Supreme Court of India, while quashing the F.I.R

considered the scope of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the

following language:

"23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of

suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation

of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission

of 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, if 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."

It was observed by the Supreme Court of India that in the absence

of any material on record even, prima facie, in the F.I.R. or statement of

the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any such Page |8

act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his

student, it would be absurd to even think that the Petitioner had any

intention to place the deceased in such circumstances that there was no

option available to him except to commit suicide.

It is said that the teachers train the mind of the students. It is

traditionally regarded a solemn duty of the teachers to instil and

inculcate discipline in the minds of the students, to guide and nurture

them to be honest, fair and righteous in future lifeso that they can be

good citizens of the country. It is not unlikely that the teachers use to

rebuke the students or sometimes become harsh to the students in order

to discipline and control them, if erring. The Petitioner of the case did

the same thing. The deceased adopted unfair means in examination hall

which is not only opposed to rules of examination but also a wrong

subversive to the discipline of the institution. If allowed, such a misdeed

will encourage other students also to adopt the same misadventure.

Statements of witnesses, in particular the students present on spot

contained nothing to indicate that the Petitioner did any act encouraging

or inciting the deceased to commit suicide or that act of the Petitioner

had direct nexus with the commitment of suicide. The written complaint

discloses nothing in this regard. The deceased might have been

hypersensitive or suffered emotional trauma or stress for taking

disciplinary action against her by the Petitioner. But the act was done as

a measure of disciplinary action against an erring student. Nothing is

there in the case diary to show that the Petitioner acted in excess for

which he could be blamed. If a teacher is entangled in criminal

prosecution for taking disciplinary action against an erring student Page |9

imperilling his respect and reputation then not only a wrong message

will go to the society but would also discourage and inhibit other

teachers to discharge their solemn duty. This would not only cause

prejudice but also aberration of justice.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent

power of the High Court. Such power can be used to prevent abuse of

the process of the court and to secure justice. In State of

Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the matter was

examined in details and various grounds were discussed on which

power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be

exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. Two of the grounds

mentioned therein are (1) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or complaint, even if they are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the

uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the

accused. A rider was added by the Supreme Court of India that such

power is to be exercised with great circumspection and caution.

The principle laid down in Bhajan Lal's case was followed and

reiterated in catena of judgments like (1) CBI vs. Duncans Agro Industries

Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], (2) Rajesh Bajaj vs. State

(NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] and (3) Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 :

P a g e | 10

2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. In Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2014) 7 SCC

215, referring to various authorities, the Supreme Court of India

reiterated the same principle:

"13. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a

prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the

test to be applied by the court is as to whether the

uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima

facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the

continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process

of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding

results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a

conclusion that quashing these proceedings would

otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can

exercise the power under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. While exercising the power under the

provision, the courts have to only look at the

uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima

facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert

itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed

questions of fact."