Karnataka High Court
Mr Rekhansh Chopra vs State Of Karnataka By on 15 December, 2021
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.29801 of 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MR. REKHANSH CHOPRA
S/O. SURESH KUMAR CHOPRA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
G-107, GANA RIDDHI APARTMENT
NAGADEVANAHALLI
KENGERI
BANGALORE 560056
2. SMT. CHITRA BYREGOWDA
W/O. CHETAN GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O. No.1323, 2ND CROSS
4TH MAIN, BEML 5TH STAGE
RAJARAJESWARINAGAR
BANGALORE
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE 560098.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001
2
2. SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA SHELANNAVAR
S/O DYAMANAPPA SHELANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO. 211/2 B, 5TH CROSS
RAJAPURA BUILDING
VIDYANAGAR
HUBLI 580 031
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R D RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R.1
SRI K JEEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2-absent)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE III
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.17445/2017 (CRIME
NO.90/2015) VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C. No.17445/2017, which
arises out of Crime No.90/2015.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri S Mahesh appearing for
the petitioners and learned High Court Government
Pleader representing respondent No.1 State.
Learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent has remained continuously absent.
Recording the absence of learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent, this Court on 02.12.2021
directed the matter to be listed on 07.12.2021, as a last
chance and again, in the interest of justice, on
07.12.2021, the matter was directed to be listed on
14.12.2021. Even today, there is no representation on
behalf of learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent-complainant.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition
as borne out in the pleadings are as follows;
The daughter of the complainant was an employee
of the Company under the name and style of 'Mindtree'.
The petitioners are the employees of the said Company
in the Human Resource department. On 13.08.2014, it
transpires that there was a theft in the Company and
the daughter of the second respondent was suspected of
thieving. She was directed to be present before the
petitioners for enquiry as the second petitioner was
appointed as the Chair person to enquire into the
aforesaid allegation of theft alleged to have been
committed by the daughter of the second respondent.
4. In the interregnum, before the daughter of the
second respondent could appear before the Committee,
she commits suicide. The second respondent-father, on
the death of his daughter, communicates to the
jurisdictional Police that nobody is responsible for the
death and that he does not doubt anybody for suicide of
his daughter. The contents of the letter are as follows;
"UÉ, EAzÀ
²æà ¥Éưøï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¹zÀÝ°AUÉÃ±ï ±Áå®tÚªÀgÀ
¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ S/o zsÁåªÀÄtÚ ±Áå®tÚªÀgÀ
gÁdgÁeɱÀéj £ÀUÀgÀ gÁeÁ¥ÀÄgÀ ©°ØAUï
¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 211/2 B 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÀħâ½î 580031
94819 31746
«µÀAiÀÄ:- £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ ¥ÀÆeÁ 24 ªÀµÀð FPÉ ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
(£ÉtÄ ©VzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ)
¸Áé«Ä, £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ
ªÉÄ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, SÁ¸ÀV
PÀ®ìªÀiÁr PÉÆAqÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ PÀªÀiÁ¯ï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 30 ªÀµÀðzÀ
»AzÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ 2 ¥ÀÆeÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ......
JA§ E§âgÀÄ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆeÁ
©.E. DlÆ ªÉƨÉÊ® EAf¤ÃAiÀÄgï FPÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ
»AzÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÉÄÊAqÀ næ JA§ I.T PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è
PÉ®¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄwzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 13/8/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4 UÀAmÉ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÀ.gÀ. £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥Á¥ÀAiÀÄå ....... ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.8, 4£ÉÃ
PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ vÀ£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉAiÀÄgÁzÀ £ÀAiÀÄ£Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zsÁåUÀ¼ÀÄ
E®èzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀA¥À¤ PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ gÀÆ«ÄUÉ
§AzÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ EAzÀ a®PÀ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥sÁå¤UÉ ºÀUÀ΢AzÀ
£ÉÃtÄ ©VzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ
eÉÆvÉ PÉ®ìªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ QgÀt JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁÝUÀ
¥sÉÆ£ï ¹éZï D¥sï DVgÀÄvÀzÉ, EªÀjUÉ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ
gÀÆ«Ä£À PÀqÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ¨ÁV®Ä ºÁQÌzÀÝjAzÀ
C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¨ÁV®Ä MqÉzÀÄ
M¼À£ÉÆqÀ¯ÁV FPÉ £ÉÃtÄ ©VzÀÄ ºÁQPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ,
¥Áæt EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÀPÀët ºÀUÀÎ PÀmï ªÀiÁr ¥ÀAvÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV FPÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀnÖzÀÝjAzÀ ¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀiÁ»w w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ FPÉ ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁgÀ
ªÉÄÃ®Ä C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À«®è. DzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ ¤eÁA±À w½AiÀÄ®Ä
¥ÉÆðøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÈvÀ zÉúÀ
PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.
EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹"
After the said communication, on 05.05.2015, the
second respondent, father of the deceased files a
complaint, notwithstanding the communication afore-
quoted, alleging the offence punishable under Section
306 of IPC. The Police after investigation file a 'B'
Summary Report in the case, holding that the
petitioners or any employee, was not responsible for the
death of the daughter of the second respondent, as the
death was a suicide.
5. Pursuant to the filing of 'B' Summary Report, a
protest petition is filed by the second respondent upon
which, the Court takes cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the
petitioners. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have
knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would take this Court through the earlier
communications, the incident, the FIR Registered, the
investigation that the Police conducted and the 'B'
Summary Report filed. All of which lead to an
unmistakable conclusion that the deceased died by
committing suicide on her own volition as there is no
act of abetment by any employee much less the
petitioners who were the holders of office in the Human
Resource Department of the Company and who were
directed to enquire into the theft and submit a report.
Mere direction to investigate into the theft committed
and calling upon the deceased to appear before it,
cannot result in an offence being made punishable
under Section 306 of IPC. Section 306 of IPC has been
interpreted by plethora of judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which are followed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.6390/2017, dated 14.09.2021, wherein this
Court has held as follows;
" 9. Since the entire issue springs from the
death of the husband of the complainant who died
by committing suicide and the allegation against
the petitioner being for the offences punishable
under abetment to suicide, it is germane to
consider Section 306 of the IPC which reads as
follows:-
"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."
Abetment as found in Section 306 of IPC is what is
described in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of
the IPC reads as follows:
"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
willful misrepresentation, or by willful
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."
Therefore, in terms of Section 306 of IPC whoever
abets a particular thing as defined under Section
107 of IPC would become punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC. Section 107 of IPC
mandates that a person abets doing of a thing and
instigates any person to do so, engages with one
or more other person in any conspiracy for doing
such a thing, intentionally aids by any act or
illegal omission of doing of that thing. Therefore,
for an offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC for abetment to suicide, the ingredients under
Section 107 of IPC are to be present in a given
case.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner
places reliance on a judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of
M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2710.
This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of
the flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as
much water has flown thereafter in interpretation
of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC by plethora of
judgments of the Apex Court. I therefore, deem it
appropriate to, at the outset, notice such flow of
law and then consider the facts obtaining in the
case at hand on the touch stone of such
interpretation by the Apex Court. The Apex Court
interpreting Section 306 of IPC, has in several
judgments, held the existence of mens rea or
instigation is necessary to make out an offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The
Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v.
STATE OF PUNJAB1has held as follows:-
"20. Section 306 of the Code
prescribes the punishment for abetment
of suicide and is designed thus:
"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."
21. It is thus manifest that the
offence punishable is one of
abetment of the commission of
suicide by any person, predicating
existence of a live link or nexus
between the two, abetment being the
propelling causative factor. The
basic ingredients of this provision
are suicidal death and the
(2017) 1 SCC 433
abetment thereof. To constitute
abetment, the intention and involvement
of the accused to aid or instigate the
commission of suicide is imperative.
Any severance or absence of any of
these constituents would militate
against this indictment. Remoteness of
the culpable acts or omissions rooted in
the intention of the accused to actualise
the suicide would fall short as well of
the offence of abetment essential to
attract the punitive mandate of Section
306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity,
culpability and complicity of the
indictable acts or omission are the
concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the
sustained incitement for suicide.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of afore-extracted judgment of the
Apex Court, to attribute act of abetment to suicide
against an accused there has to be some link and
proximity of the accused with the deceased who
committed suicide.
11. The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH
KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH2
considers what is abetment and delineates as
follows:-
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do "an act". To satisfy the requirement
of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. The present one is not a case
where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other
(2001) 9 SCC 618
option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of
anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal
Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73: 1994 SCC
(Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned 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 her
life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive
to ordinary petulance, discord and
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The Apex Court in the case of
AMALENDU PAL V. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL3, has held as follows::
"12. Thus, this Court has
consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it
in order to find out whether the cruelty
and harassment meted out to the victim
had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life.
It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide
(2010) 1 SCC 707
there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. 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.
13. In order to bring a case within
the purview of Section 306 IPC there
must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the
person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the
act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved
and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression "abetment"
has been defined under Section 107 IPC
which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the
commission of suicide when a person
instigates any person to do that thing
as stated in clause Firstly or to do
anything as stated in clauses Secondly
or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section
109 IPC provides that if the act abetted
is committed pursuant to and in
consequence of abetment then the
offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original
offence. Learned counsel for the
respondent State, however, clearly
stated before us that it would be a case
where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC
only would be attracted. According to
him, a case of abetment of suicide is
made out as provided for under Section
107 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
Again, the Apex Court in the case of
S.S. CHHEENA V. VIJAY KUMAR
MAHAJAN4, has held as follows:
"24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. The
Court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the words "instigation"
and "goading". The Court opined
that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each
person's suicidability pattern is
different from the other. Each
person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it
is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on
(2010) 12 SCC 190
the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
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.
26. In the instant case, the
deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen
in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity
of each individual differs from the other.
Different people behave differently in
the same situation.
27. When we carefully scrutinise
and critically examine the facts of this
case in the light of the settled legal
position the conclusion becomes obvious
that no conviction can be legally
sustained without any credible evidence
or material on record against the
appellant. The order of framing a charge
under Section 306 IPC against the
appellant is palpably erroneous and
unsustainable. It would be travesty of
justice to compel the appellant to face a
criminal trial without any credible
material whatsoever. Consequently, the
order of framing charge under Section
306 IPC against the appellant is
quashed and all proceedings pending
against him are also set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in a recent judgment in the
case of GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF
PUNJAB5 while considering the entire spectrum of
law has held as follows:
"13. Section 107 IPC defines
"abetment" and in this case, the
following part of the section will bear
consideration:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--
A person abets the doing of a thing,
who--
First.--Instigates any person to do
that thing; or
***
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing."
14. The definition quoted above
makes it clear that whenever a person
instigates or intentionally aids by any
(2020) 10 SCC 200
act or illegal omission, the doing of a
thing, a person can be said to have
abetted in doing that thing.
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. The ingredient of mens
rea cannot be assumed to be
ostensibly present but has to be
visible and conspicuous. However,
what transpires in the present matter is
that both the trial court as well as the
High Court never examined whether the
appellant had the mens rea for the
crime he is held to have committed. The
conviction of the appellant by the trial
court as well as the High Court on the
theory that the woman with two young
kids might have committed suicide
possibly because of the harassment
faced by her in the matrimonial house is
not at all borne out by the evidence in
the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy
because of the appellant and she was
forced to take such a step on his
account.
18. In Mangat Ram v. State of
Haryana [Mangat Ram v. State of
Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595: (2014) 5
SCC (Cri) 127] , which again was a case
of wife's unnatural death, speaking for
the Division Bench, K.S.P.
Radhakrishnan, J. rightly observed as
under : (SCC p. 606, para 24)
"24. We find it difficult to
comprehend the reasoning of the
High Court [Mangat Ram v. State
of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.
592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-
2008 (P&H)] that "no prudent man
is to commit suicide unless
abetted to do so". A woman may
attempt to commit suicide due to
various reasons, such as,
depression, financial difficulties,
disappointment in love, tired of
domestic worries, acute or chronic
ailments and so on and need not
be due to abetment. The reasoning
of the High Court that no prudent
man will commit suicide unless
abetted to do so by someone else,
is a perverse reasoning."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the case at hand will have to be
considered on the bedrock of the IPC and
judgments of the Apex Court (supra).
13. Since the entire issue springs from the
complaint registered against the petitioner and
others, it is germane to notice the complaint,
which reads as follows:
"«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ
ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ «µÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ
DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
zÀÆgÀÄ.
vÀÄgÀĪÉÃPÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, zÀAr£À²ªÀgÀ
ºÉÆç½, UÉÆgÀªÀ£À¥Á¼Àå UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ
D¢PÀ£ÁðlPÀ (¥À.eÁ) d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ®PÀëöäªÀÄä
PÉÆÃA ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ
Cfð K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012£ÉÃ
UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6.00 UÀAmÉ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï PÁ¦üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀAzÉUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä vÉÆÃlPÉÌ
ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå
JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁջãÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è PɼÀUÉ ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ
¨ÁAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆgÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖÃ. EzÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀ
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ PÀÆUÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï¤AzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ
«µÀAiÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ £ÁªÉ®è ºÉÆÃV
EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CA§Ä¯É£ïì ªÀÄÄASÁvÀgÀ
UÀÄ©â ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃV C°è ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ
aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ¸À®ºÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ
vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ
ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¯ÁAiÀÄÄÛ, C°è aQvÉì ¥sÀ°¸ÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ
12.10.2012£Éà ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00
UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è L.¹.AiÀÄÄ ªÁqïð£À°è ªÀÄgÀt
ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtªÉãÉAzÀgÉ
£ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ
¸ÉÃjzÀ («ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ) ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï
¹zÀÞ°AUÀAiÀÄå ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ¥Àwß
n.J¸ï.ªÀÄAUÀ¼À PÉÆÃA ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ
CtÚ ºÉZï.J¸ï.°AUÀgÁeï ©£ï ¹zÀÞ°AUÀAiÀÄå
JA§ÄªÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.1/49
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1/50gÀ 8 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäzÀÄÝ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå ©£ï °AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ
PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ®Æ
C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, F d«Ää£À §UÉÎ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄïÉ
DVAzÁUÉå ¥ÉÆðøï PÀA¥ÉèÃAmï PÉÆlÄÖ
C£ÁªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É d«ÄãÀÄ MqÉAiÀÄĪÀ
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ.
C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ F d«ÄãÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®è.
¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀĨÉÃPÉA¢ÀzÀÝgÉà F d«Ää£À ºÀwÛgÀ ¨Á
JAzÀÄ ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß £À£Àß
JzÀÄjUÉ ©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï d«Ää£À ºÀwÛgÀ £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä
d«ÄäUÉ ªÀÄļÀÄî vÀAw PÀA§ £ÉqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ CzÉà ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄïÉ
ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ eÁw ¤AzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr
CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ
£ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÄÖ £ÁªÀÅ
¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è £ÉªÀÄ䢬ÄAzÀ ¨Á¼À®Ä ©qÀÄwÛgÀ°®è
ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012gÀAzÀÄ zÀAqÀ£À²ªÀgÀ
¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£À: EªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÉ
ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉøï zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ
£À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ UÉÆvÁÛV ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ F CªÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¸À»¸À¯ÁgÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012£Éà UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ
UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀiÁgÀÄvÀªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÉñï
JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀjUÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÀ§âPÉÌ HlPÉÌ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÁUÀ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
C¼ÀÄvÁÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á® ªÀiÁr ©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï£À°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ. F ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß D¹Û ¹UÀÄwÛ®è
ªÀQîgÁzÀ ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå F ¢£À ¥ÀÄ£À: £À£Àß ªÉÄïÉ
¥ÉÆðøï PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆnÖzÁÝ£É. £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ F D¹Û ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ
ºÉýzÁÝ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ «µÀPÀÄrzÀÄ
DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. DªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁgÀ ªÉÄïÉ
¥ÉÆðøïgÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÆà ¤ÃqÀ° JAzÀÄ
zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀgÀÄ EµÀÖPÉ̯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ
ºÉzÀj DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ §Ä¢Ý
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. zsÉÊAiÀÄð vÀÄA©zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ
HjUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. CzÉà ¢£À £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ
CªÀªÀiÁ£À vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉ £À£ÀUÉ vÀ©âPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ UÉÆüÁrzÀgÀÄ CzÀjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀgÀ
§UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß UÀAqÀ «µÀPÀÄr¢zÁÝ£ÉAiÉÆÃ
CxÀªÁ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï
¹zÀÝ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄð£À zÉéõÀPÁÌV £ÀªÀÄä
vÉÆÃlzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ «µÀ
PÀÄr¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÆà JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀıÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ
ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ £ÁåAiÀÄ
zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è ¥Áæyð¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
(Emphasis added)
In terms of the complaint what can be gathered is,
the petitioner and the deceased were holding lands
abutting to each other. The allegation in the
complaint is that the petitioner and his family
members have harassed the deceased by filing
several cases against him concerning the dispute
with regard to the land. The allegation in the
complaint is that when the complainant and her
husband went to the house of one Mahesh, it is
there the deceased confided into Mahesh that he
had raised loan and had purchased the property
in B.C.Kaval and today he is not getting the said
property as the petitioner has filed a complaint
against him. It is his assumption that till he dies
the property would not come in his possession.
Because of that reason, the deceased consumed
poison. This is what is narrated by the
complainant in the complaint. The complaint
further narrates that Mahesh consoled the
deceased by telling him that this trivial issue
should not be a ground for him to commit suicide
and on that day itself the complainant alleges that
her husband unable to bear the insult, committed
suicide. The entire complaint does not narrate
any abetment by the petitioner being present at
that point in time or leaving the deceased with no
other option, but to commit suicide on account of
a guilty mind on the part of the petitioner.
14. With regard to filing of cases against the
deceased by the petitioner and his family
members, an endorsement is appended to the
petition papers with regard to the information
furnished by the jurisdictional police that up to
11.10.2012 there were no criminal cases that are
filed against the deceased by the petitioner or any
other family members of the petitioner. The
issuance of this endorsement and its veracity is
not in dispute. The case that the family of the
petitioner had filed against the deceased was
O.S.No.131 of 2000 which was a suit filed for
declaration and injunction against the deceased.
The suit was decreed on 18-06-2008. This is the
only litigation between the parties apart from a
criminal complaint that was registered on 10-10-
2012, a day before the deceased committed
suicide. With regard to the original suit that was
filed in the year 2000 and the civil court decreeing
the said suit on 18-06-2008, the civil litigation has
become final.
15. The complaint that was registered
against the petitioner was with regard to constant
harassment of the petitioner to the deceased. The
complaint was registered on 10-10-2012 and
therefore, it cannot even casually link the
abetment to suicide to the registration of the
complaint or the ingredients of such abetment.
Mere filing of a case or registration of a complaint
or even harassment cannot mean that the
petitioner had indulged in abetment to suicide of
the deceased.
16. As delineated by the Apex Court in the
judgments extracted (supra), abetment under
Section 107 of IPC has few ingredients to be
proved. If Section 306 of IPC, has to be proved, if
the judgment of the Apex court and the facts
obtaining in the case at hand, as stated above are
considered, it would unmistakably reveal that
there cannot be any link to the death of the
deceased with the petitioner, as the state of mind
to commit a particular crime is a sine qua non to
establish an offence under Section 107 IPC and to
prove mens rea, there has to be something on
record, to establish or show that the petitioner
had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state
of mind, abetted suicide to the deceased. Neither
the narration in the complaint nor the material in
the charge sheet link the offence under Section
306 IPC with the petitioner. The postmortem
report indicates that the deceased died of
consumption of excessive alcohol coupled with
poison. Neither consumption of excessive alcohol
or consumption of poison can link to the cases
filed against the deceased by the petitioner. As
stated hereinabove, mere harassment by way of
filing of cases cannot even remotely link the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
306 of the IPC. Except the self-serving statement
in the complaint, by the complainant, there is
nothing on record to show that the petitioner even
remotely instigated abetment of the deceased to
commit suicide. In my considered view, there is
absolutely no basis to proceed against the
petitioner for the alleged offence of Section 306 of
the IPC and the provisions of the Atrocities Act. It
would be travesty of justice to compel the
petitioner to undergo trial particularly when there
is no material against him.
17. Therefore, this is a case where this Court
should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, as held by the
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v.
BAJANLAL6 as also, the judgment in the case of
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335
MAGISTRATE7 wherein the Apex Court holds as
follows:-
"28. Summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion
as a matter of course ............"
Later, the Apex Court in the case of RAJIV
THAPAR V. MADAN LAL KAPOOR8, has held as
follows:
"30. Based on the factors
canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs,
we would delineate the following steps
to determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashment raised by an accused by
invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1.Step one: whether the
material relied upon by the accused is
sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e.
(1998) 5 SCC 749
(2013)3 SCC 330
the material is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
30.2.Step two: whether the
material relied upon by the accused
would rule out the assertions contained
in the charges levelled against the
accused i.e. the material is sufficient to
reject and overrule the factual
assertions contained in the complaint
i.e. the material is such as would
persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis
of the accusations as false?
30.3.Step three: whether the
material relied upon by the accused has
not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4.Step four: whether
proceeding with the trial would result in
an abuse of process of the court, and
would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the
steps is in the affirmative, the judicial
conscience of the High Court should
persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings in exercise of power vested
in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such
exercise of power, besides doing justice
to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well
as proceedings arising therefrom)
specially when it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of
the accused."
Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of BAJANLAL which has been
followed in plethora of judgments in the aftermath
of BAJANLAL and the judgment in the case of
RAJIV THAPAR, the petition deserves to succeed."
7. After the judgment in Crl.P.6390/2017, dated
14.09.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated its
earlier judgments which were followed by this Court in
the judgment rendered supra in the case of KANCHAN
SHARMA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS9 wherein, the Apex court holds as follows;
"9. Having heard learned counsel on both
sides, we have perused the impugned order
and other material placed on record. Except
the self-serving statements of the complainant
and other witnesses stating that deceased
was in love with the Appellant, there is no
other material to show that Appellant was
maintaining any relation with the deceased.
From the material placed on record it is clear
that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018
deceased went to the house of the Appellant
and consumed poison by taking out from a
small bottle which he has carried in his
pocket. Merely because he consumed poison
in front of the house of the Appellant, that
MANU/SC/0659/2021 = AIR 2021 SC 4313
itself will not indicate any relation of the
Appellant with the deceased. 'Abetment'
involves mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without positive act on the
part of the Accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, no one can be convicted
for offence Under Section 306, Indian Penal
Code. To proceed against any person for the
offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code
it 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. There is nothing on
record to show that Appellant was
maintaining relation with the deceased and
further there is absolutely no material to
allege that Appellant abetted for suicide of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 306,
Indian Penal Code.. Even with regard to
offence alleged Under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act
it is to be noticed that except vague and bald
statement that the Appellant and other family
members abused deceased by uttering
casteist words but there is nothing on record
to show to attract any of the ingredients
for the alleged offence also. This Court
in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
MANU/SXC/1453/2009 2009)16 SCC 605
had an occasion to deal with the aspect of
abetment. In the said case this Court has
opined that there should be an intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
act by the accused. Besides, the judgment
also observed that each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the other and each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and
self-respect. In the said judgment it is held
that it is impossible to lay down any
straightjacket formula dealing with the cases
of suicide and each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State
of West Bengal MANU/SC/1808/2009:
(2010) 1 SCC 707 in order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306, Indian
Penal Code this Court has held as under :
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently
taken the view that before holding an
Accused guilty of an offence Under
Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the
court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to
the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to
her life. It is also to be borne in mind
that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. 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 Indian Penal Code
is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 Indian Penal
Code there must be a case of suicide
and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence
must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted
Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.."
In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan &
Anr.MANU/SC/0585/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC
190 this Court reiterated the ingredients of
offence of Section 306 Indian Penal Code..
Paragraph 25 of the judgment 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 Indian Penal Code 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."
In the judgment in the case of Rajiv
Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur
MANU/SC/0053/2013 : (2013) 3 SCC
330 this Court has considered the
scope of the provision under Section
482, Code of Criminal Procedure and
has laid down the steps which should
be followed by the High Court to
determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing of proceedings in exercise of
power under Section 482, Code of
Criminal Procedure Paragraph 30
containing the four steps read as under
:
"30. Based on the factors canvassed
in the foregoing paragraphs, we would
delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashment raised by an Accused by
invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure:
30.1.Step one: whether the material
relied upon by the Accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the
material is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
30.2.Step two: whether the material
relied upon by the Accused would Rule
out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the Accused
i.e. the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint i.e. the
material is such as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the
accusations as false?
30.3.Step three: whether the material
relied upon by the Accused has not
been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4.Step four: whether proceeding with
the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in
the affirmative, the judicial conscience
of the High Court should persuade it to
quash such criminal proceedings in
exercise of power vested in it Under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Such exercise of power, besides doing
justice to the Accused, would save
precious court time, which would
otherwise be wasted in holding such a
trial (as well as proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when it is clear that
the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the Accused."
10. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided
by this Court, we have carefully scrutinized
the material on record and examined the facts
of the case on hand. Except the statement
that the deceased was in relation with the
Appellant, there is no material at all to show
that Appellant was maintaining any relation
with the deceased. In fact, at earlier point of
time when the deceased was stalking the
Appellant, the Appellant along with her father
went to the police station complained about
the calls which were being made by the
deceased to the Appellant. Same is evident
from the statement of S.I. Manoj Kumar
recorded on 05.07.2018. In his statement
recorded he has clearly deposed that the
father along with the Appellant went to the
police post and complained against the
deceased who was continuously calling the
Appellant and proposing that she should
marry him with a threat that he will die
otherwise. Having regard to such material
placed on record and in absence of any
material within the meaning of Section 107 of
Indian Penal Code, there is absolutely no
basis to proceed against the appellant for the
alleged offence Under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It
would be travesty of justice to compel the
Appellant to face a criminal trial without any
credible material whatsoever."
8. Therefore, in the light of the facts obtaining in the
case at hand and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the afore-quoted judgment, if trial is permitted
to continue against the petitioners, it would without
doubt degenerate into harassment against them and
result in miscarriage of justice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is
allowed. All proceedings against the petitioners stand
obliterated.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mv
