Tata Steel Utilities And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3364 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Tata Steel Utilities And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (Cr.) No.898 of 2024
                             ------

Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited (Tata Steel UISL), having registered office at Sakchi Boulevard Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, represented through Shri Jai Pushpit Pallav, aged about 49 years, son of Shri J.P.N. Das, working as Chief Divisional Manager (Legal) in Tata Steel UISL, office at Sakchi Boulevard Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

                                          ...             Petitioner
                             Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Pushpendra Kumar, son of Late Om Prakash, resident of H.No. 572, Line No. 05, Gadhabasa, Golmuri, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

                                    ...              Respondents
                             With

                          ------

Dr. Alok Kumar @ Dr. Alok Suman Sharma, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Jai Prakash Sharma, resident of A-296, Road No.19, Tuiladungri Basti, Golmuri, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

                                          ...             Petitioner
                             Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Pushpendra Kumar, son of Late Om Prakash, resident of H.No. 572, Line No. 05, Gadhabasa, Golmuri, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

                                    ...              Respondents

                                                                     With

                                              ------
             For the Petitioners       : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
                                         Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V
                                         Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V
                                         Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
                                         Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III
             For the Resp. No.2        : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
                                               ------
                                        PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. Since both these Writ Petitions (Cr.) have been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

with the same prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/

direction(s) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of

Golmuri P.S. Case No.112 of 2024, involving the offence punishable under

Sections 108 read with 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, hence, both these Writ Petitions

(Cr.) are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.2 lodged a written

report with the Officer-in-Charge of Golmuri Police Station alleging therein

that his father namely Om Prakash was working in the Public Health

Department of the petitioner of W.P.(Cr.) No.898 of 2024 on the post of Senior

Supervisor but 3 to 4 months prior to his death, the said Om Prakash was

transferred from Northern Town Branch to Golmuri Branch Office of the said

writ petitioner's company. The workload in the new posting area was heavy.

As the deceased was to look after several areas, the deceased was facing

With

difficulty in discharging his duty but the management was putting pressure to

get the work done by him. The deceased used to remain under tension and on

07.08.2024, he committed suicide after leaving a suicide note; in which it was

written that excess work and unnecessary workload, is the cause of the suicide

of Om Prakash and it was mentioned that the petitioner of W.P.(Cr.) No.627 of

2024 being the Chief of Department and Area Manager, albeit whose name has

not been mentioned in the FIR, was intimated by the deceased about the excess

work but the workload upon the deceased was not reduced but his additional

work was further increased. Hence, he committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nipun Aneja & Others vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 767, para-21 to 23 of which read as

under:-

"21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the

With

latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a fullfledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following:"

(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity?"

and submits that this is a case of second category as mentioned in the

said judgment on account of official relations and submits that in order to

establish the offence punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S., 2023 which is

the pari materia of provision of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in case of

With

ties on official relations, it has to be examined whether the petitioners created a

situation on the date of the occurrence of unbearable harassment or torture

leading the deceased to commit suicide as the only aspect. It is next submitted

that there is no allegation against the petitioners of exploiting the emotional

vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or undeserving of

life leading him to commit suicide nor there is any allegation of threatening the

deceased with dire consequences or making any false allegation that may

damage the reputation of the deceased or force him to commit suicide. It is next

submitted that there is no allegation that any disciplinary action has even been

taken against the petitioner. It is next submitted that merely because the

petitioner was entrusted with same additional work; at the most that goes to

show the confidence of the petitioner upon the deceased but the same without

any further allegation, as indicated above in this paragraph, by no stretch of

imagination, can be termed as harassment or torturing.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikas Chandra vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2024 INSC 261 wherein in para-19, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of

M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

reported in 2011 INSC 168, Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat &

Another reported in 2010 INSC 521 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 INSC 1040 wherein it was held that

"in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code on

the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the

With

person concerned, as a result of that abetment is required. It is further

submitted that in para-22 of the judgment of Vikas Chandra vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has referred to

the observations made by it in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State

(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, para- 17 of which reads as

under:-

"17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (seeConcise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts."

and submits that in order to instigate for commission of suicide is to keep

irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners then draws attention of this Court

towards para-8 of Vikas Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra)

wherein in para-5 and 6 of the case of Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal

reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659, has been quoted which reads as under:-

"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful

With

concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".

6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag." (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of

committing any willful act or ommission or intentionally aided or instigated

the deceased in committing the act of suicide. So, no offence punishable under

Section 108 read with 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the

petitioners. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners further relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnab

Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2021) 2

SCC 427 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its judgment

in the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in

(2010) 12 SCC 190, para-25 of which reads as under:-

"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 mens rea 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."

and submits that in order to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 108 of the B.N.S., 2023, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the

offence and 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 or that

With

the petitioner did any act intending to push the deceased into such a position;

that he committed suicide.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is not that the

deceased was vested with an additional charge of some more area immediately

before his death rather the same was done at least four months before his

death. There is no motive attributed to the petitioners as to why the petitioners

will want the deceased to die. There is total absence of any mens rea on the part

of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in these

Writ Petitions (Cr.) be allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that besides commission of

suicide, the offence of missing of the wallet and mobile phone has also been

alleged. Of course, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having

committed theft of the same but certainly, the same creates a suspicion. Hence,

at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceeding ought not to be quashed.

Therefore, it is submitted that these Writ Petitions (Cr.), being without any

merit, be dismissed.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through

the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as

already indicated above, it is a settled principle of law, that in a case of suicide,

where the allegation against the accused is that, the tie of the accused with the

deceased is on account of official relations; the test for the court to adopt is to

make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials available on the

record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused

intended the consequence of the act i.e. suicide.

With

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, except the allegation that the

deceased has been given much more workload than his previous posting, after

his transfer about four months prior to the date of the occurrence, there is no

other allegation against the petitioners. Mere allegation of giving some extra

workload to the subordinate by the higher/superior officials, in the considered

opinion of this court, cannot be termed as harassment or torture. There is no

allegation against the petitioners that because of any failure to do the extra

work or failure to meet the expectations from the deceased by the petitioners,

any disciplinary action or any threat that his service will be terminated has ever

been made. There is total absence of any allegation which, even remotely

indicate any mens rea on the part of the petitioners. There is no motive

attributed to the petitioners as to why the petitioners will want the deceased to

die. There is no allegation of any active act or direct act against the petitioners,

which could have led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option.

Further, there is no allegation that the petitioners intended that the deceased

commit suicide.

11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that, even

if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR are considered to

be true in their entirety, still the allegations falls short of constituting the

essential ingredient of abetment of commission of suicide; the principles of

which has already been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this

judgment. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of

the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of Golmuri P.S. Case No.112 of

2024 against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore,

this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of

With

Golmuri P.S. Case No.112 of 2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside against

the petitioners.

12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of

Golmuri P.S. Case No.112 of 2024 is quashed and set aside against the

petitioners.

13. In the result, these Writ Petitions (Cr.) are allowed.

14. In view of disposal of these Writ Petitioners (Cr.), the interim relief

granted earlier vide orders dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.898 of 2024

and 27.08.2024 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.627 of 2024 are vacated.

15. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of March, 2025 AFR/ Saroj

With