Karnataka High Court
Sri.V.V.Singara Velu vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3095 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI.V.V.SINGARA VELU
S/O LATE V.K.VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2 . SMT. VASANTHI VELU
W/O SINGARAVELU V.V.,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.292/1, 1ST MAIN
DEFENCE COLONY
HAL 2ND STAGE
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 038.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PULAKESHINAGAR P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI V.GIRIVELU
S/O LATE V.K.VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO.3/3, WHEELER'S ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.P.S.KHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND THE
PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN C.C. NO. 50169/2022 (CRIME NO.
444/2021 OF PULAKESHINAGAR P.S.) FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 306
R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LD. XI
ADDL. CMM COURT MAYO HALL BANGALORE CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in C.C.No.50169 of 2022 pending before the
XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of
Crime No.444 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under
Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts, as projected by the prosecution, are as
follows:-
Accused No.1/petitioner No.1 is the brother of the
complainant. Accused No.2 is the wife of the brother of the
complainant. In connection with father's property, accused No.1
has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.25938 of 2018 which is
pending adjudication. Petitioner No.1 along with his wife file
complaints relating to his father's property against the complainant,
his wife one Smt. Revathi and their son G. Vikram. In this regard on
the night of 23-11-2021 the son of the complainant, G.Vikram aged
about 33 years committed suicide in the second floor room of the
residence by hanging himself leaving a death note alleging that in
the month of October, 2021 petitioners 1 and 2 had cornered him
near the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Office in Bangalore
and threatened him that they will destroy his parents life and the
reason for him taking the extreme step is this incident. After the
death of the son of the complainant, a complaint comes to be
registered alleging that the petitioners are the ones who are
responsible for the death of the deceased. The complaint becomes a
crime in Crime No.444 of 2021 for offences punishable under
Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC. The petitioners are the accused in
the said crime. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet
implicating the petitioners as accused and filing of the charge sheet
leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri
S.P.S. Khadri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned senior counsel would vehemently contend that
none of the ingredients that are necessary for an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC to be proved are even present in the case on
hand. The alleged death note divulges and alleges that the
petitioners in connection with a property dispute chided the
deceased and that was in the month of October, 2021 and the
alleged date of incident is 23-11-2021. Even if it is taken as
correct, there is no proximity for the death to be blamed upon the
petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are in no way responsible for
abetting the commission of suicide of the deceased.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently oppose the petition
by contending that the Police after investigation have filed a charge
sheet against the petitioners. In the light of the charge sheet so
filed, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued. The
complainant has lost his son. It is a grave agony that has befallen
on the family of the complainant. Therefore, the petitioners should
not be spared. Whether they have abetted or not to the commission
of suicide of the son is a matter of trial. It is for the petitioners to
come out clean in the said trial.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe
the lines of the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent to
contend that there is a death note. The death note reveals names
of petitioners and if the death note reveals names of accused it is
for those petitioners to come out clean in the trial as if there is no
evidence, they would be acquitted and if there is evidence,
consequences would ensue. She would seek to place reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHENDRA K.C. v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA1 and would submit that in the light of the
judgment of the Apex Court, petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. The learned senior counsel in reply to the aforesaid
submissions of the respondents would seek to contend that the
judgment in the case of MAHENDRA.K.C. (supra) was on different
set of facts as there was proximity with the death therein. In the
case at hand, there is no proximity to the death as what is found in
the death note is some alleged abuses in the month of October,
2021 and the incident is on 23.11.2021. Therefore, the said
judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the case. He would
seek termination of proceedings.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute would need
a little elaboration. The protagonists to the lis are the 1st
(2022) 2 SCC 129
petitioner/accused No.1 and the complainant/2nd respondent who
are brothers. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of accused No.1.
Therefore, she is the sister-in-law of the complainant. The parties
to the lis have a lis among themselves. The lis concern the property
dispute or partition being sought of the property in O.S.No.25938 of
2018. The plaintiff is the 1st accused and defendants are the
complainant, his wife and son. The said proceedings are pending
adjudication. Therefore, the members of the family are before the
civil Court on a property dispute.
10. The petitioners register a private complaint against all the
three viz., the complainant, his wife and son in P.C.R.No.54194 of
2021 alleging that the petitioners who were staying abroad came
back to India only to get to know that the father of the 1st petitioner
had died and his death was not even informed to the petitioners.
On the death of the father, several documents with regard to the
properties had changed hands all without the knowledge of the 1st
petitioner. Therefore, the 1st petitioner invokes Section 200 of the
CrPC and seeks to register a crime for offence punishable under
Sections. 299, 300, 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate
refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C., which becomes a crime in Crime No.427 of 2021 having
registered it on 13-11-2021. Therefore, the 1st petitioner has
instituted a civil suit and a crime in Crime No.427 of 2021. It
appears that the Police after investigation filed a 'B' report and the
matter is now at the stage of answering a protest petition. The
aforesaid two cases are not the subject matter of the present lis.
11. On 23-11-2021 the son of the complainant dies by
committing suicide by hanging himself. Prior to the death, the son
had left a death note. The death note points at the petitioners, for
him taking the extreme step. The death note reads as follows:
"To whomsoever it may concern
My Suicide Note
I, Vikram G, son of V Giri Velu residing at #3/3 Wheeler's
Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore - 560005 with utmost grief am
writing this letter and hold my uncle V.V.Singara Velu - Civil
Engineer son of Late V.K.Vittal Rao residing at #292/1, 1st Main,
Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Banglore - 560
038 (working for DUTCO company in Dubai, UAE) and Vasanthy
Velu wife of V.V.Singara Velu residing at #292/1, 1st Main,
Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038
fully responsible for my suicide.
By the time you read this letter, I would have sadly already left
this beautiful world.
In the month of October, 2021, my uncle V.V.Singara Velu
and his wife Vasanthy Velu had suddenly cornered me
near B.B.M.P office in Bangalore and threatened me
Vikram G that they will destroy my parent's life by any
way and means possible. V.V.Singara Velu and his wife
Vasanthy Velu very well knowing about my sensitive
nature, abused me in foul and filthy language and
mentioned to me that the Police Department are in their
pocket and that they also have good friendship with local
politicians namely Pradeep Kumar Reddy (ex-corporator),
George (ex-minister) and George's PA and that with the
help of the Politicians and the Police they will do
whatever they want. V.V.Singara Velu and his wife
Vasanthy Velu told me that if I give up my life then they
will not harm my parents. This is the only option they
had given me. After hearing their cruel, wicked and
unbearable words from them, I was deeply hurt and I
broke down completely both physically and mentally.
Even now I am still in shock and I am not being able to
digest and recover from what V.V.Singara Velu and his
wife Vasanthy Velu told me to do.
I love my parents very much as they are my world to me.
After giving in a lot of thought what V.V.Singara Velu and
his wife Vasanthy Velu told me to do, I have finally
decided to end my own life to throw light on the
seriousness of the situation and I state V.V.Singara Velu
and his wife Vasanthy Velu totally responsible for my
suicide.
As my uncle V.V.Singara Velu and his wife Vasanthy Velu are
totally responsible for my death by suicide, I humbly pray the
concerned authorities to punish them and take strict actions
against them immediately in accordance with law.
I bequeath everything that is in my possession including my
personal belongings to go to my mother U.Revathi.
Goodbye World
Sd/-
(Viram G)
(Emphasis added)
The foundation in the death note is in the month of October, 2021
the 1st petitioner and his wife suddenly cornered the deceased and
threatened that they will destroy his parents' life by all means
possible. It further notices that the son was of sensitive nature and
unable to bear the said abuse. It is also stated that if he ends up
his life the petitioners would not trouble his parents and as such
has committed suicide. It is this suicide note that brings the
petitioners as accused in Crime No.444 of 2021. The 2nd
respondent is the complainant and the complaint so registered
reads as follows:
"Respected Sir,
This is to state that my father name is V K Vittal Rao and
I his son V Giri Velu father of G.Vikram, 33 yers old and G
Revathi mother of G Vikram residing at 3/3 Wheelers Rd, Frazer
Town, B'lore 560 005 were residing a simple and peaceful life.
On 23/11/2021 last is spoke to my son G Vikram at 9 pm and
then I went to take rest in my room. Then in the morning on
24.11.2021 at around 6.00am to 7.00am he usually goes to
start the car and his scooter and he puts biscuit to the dog near
my house and then goes upstairs on the second floor and then
he does his exercise on the tread mill and then usually goes to
the room on second floor and listens to music for some time and
then comes down to have his bath. At around 6.30 am I rang
the bell which is inside the second floor room, usually when we
ring the bell he comes outside the room and he answers I will
come, but on ringing the bell there was no answer from Vikram
G, then again after few minutes at around 7am again I rang the
bell again there was not a answer from Vikram G. Then I
thought he would have gone to start the car. When informed
my wife, she also told me might be he has gone to start the car.
Then my wife G Revathi had gone to the rooftop to pluck flowers
from the flower plants. After plucking the flowers she went to
room situated on the second floor and tapped at the door, still
there was no response and she called Vikram, still there was no
response. Then suddenly in the entrance of the Door she same
some written papers and the she read it, the note written by
Vikram which mentioned "Please Do Not Break Open, call Media
and Police for proof and Evidence and let them break open the
door (For Witness). Then I Giri Velu immediately went rushing
to the Pulakeshinagar Police Station and informed them about
the incident. Then immediately the police personnels came to
my residence situated at 3/3 Wheeler Rd., Frazer Town, B'lore -
5 and went to the spot and saw that the Door was locked from
inside and then broke open the door and went inside the room
and the saw Vikram G my son was found hanging from the
railing of the Roof Top and in the entrance of the Door Vikram G
had left a suicide note mentioning that there is a original suicide
note in his pocket for which the police has taken the original
suicide death note from his pocket for which the police has
taken the original suicide death note from his pocket and all
other suicide death notes mentioning that V V Singara Velu and
his wife Vasanthi Velu are solely responsible for his suicide and
death and found that Vikram.G has also written on the wall of
the room mentioning that V V Singara Velu & Vasanthi Velu are
solely responsible for his suicide & death.
Sir this is to state that my brother V.V.Singara Velu and his wife
Vasanthi Velu often has given fake and false complaints against
me V Giri Velu, my wife G Revathi and my son Vikram G and
always wanted spoil my family reputation in different places.
And for all V V Singara Velu and his wife Vasanthi Velu's
complaints against us we have proved all the complaint false &
wrong with complete proof of documents. V V Singara Velu &
his wife Vasanthi Velu in the month of October, 2021 has
cornered my son Vikram G near the BBMP office Bangalore and
threatened him Vikram G That they will destroy his parents
V.Giri Velu and G Revathi by anyway and means possible.
V.Singara Velu and his wife Vasanthi Velu told Vikram G that if
he gives up his life then only they will not harm his parents
V.Giri Velu & G Revathi. After hearing their cruel, wicked and
unbearable words & behavior from them, Vikram G my son was
deeply hurt and Vikram G broke down completely both
physically and mentally and he was still in a shock and was not
able to digest and recover from what V V Singara Velu and his
wife Vasanthi Velu told and threatened him to do. Based on
these threatening statements made to Vikram G by V V Singara
Velu & Vasanthi Velu his wife, Vikram G my son of V Giri Velu
had finally decided to end his own life and Vikram G has
mentioned that V V Singara Velu and his wife Vasanthi Velu are
solely and totally responsible for his suicide & his death. He has
requested the police department and concerned authorities to
punish both Singara Velu & his wife Vasanthi Velu and to take
strict action against them immediately in accordance with law.
Sir this is suicide death note left behind by Vikram G my son of
V Giri Velu and his mother G Revathi.
Sir, we V Giri Velu & my wife G Revathi request the respected
police department to take very very strict action against V V
Singara Velu and his wife Vasanthi Velu solely responsible for
my son Vikram G suicide to death. Sir kindly do the needful &
oblige."
The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet is found in column No.7 reading as
follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ «Ã®gïì gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ
#3/3, gÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CAPÀt-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÁVzÀÄÝ, J2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀvÀ #3/3 gÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥Á®Ä
ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÉÄAiÉÆà ºÁ¯ï£À PÉÆÃmïð ºÁ¯ï £ÀA:58 gÀ°è N.J¸ï £ÀA:25938/2018 gÀ°è
¥Ánð²AiÀÄ£ï ¸ÀÆåmï zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉà ¸ÀzÀj J1
& J2 DgÉÆæUÀ½§âgÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÁV ¸ÁQë-1 ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ
²æêÀÄw gÉêÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ²æà «PÀæA.f JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ «PÀæA.f, 33 ªÀµÀð FvÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ 2£ÉÃ
ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è£À gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ¢:23/24-11-2021 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ In the month of
October 2021 My uncle V.V.Singara Velu and his wife
Vasanthy velu had cornered me near BBMP Office in
Bangalore and threatened me that they will destroy my
parents life, V.V.Singaravelu and his wife Vasanthi Velu
told me that if I give up my life then they will not harm
my parents. This is the only option they had given me. I
state V.V Singaravelu and his wife Vasanthi Velu totally
responsible for my Suicide JA§ÄzÁV qÉvï£ÉÆÃmï §gÉ¢lÄÖ vÁgÀ¹AiÀÄ ¥ÉʦUÉ
¹ÃgɬÄAzÀ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
¸ÀzÀj J1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÁV ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ
PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉøÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄÈvÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ «PÀæA.f FvÀ£ÀÄ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ
ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A jÃvÀå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ
¸À°è¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¤ªÉÃzÀ£É: ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ C¸À®Ä qÉvï£ÉÆÃmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¹Ã¯ï
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀÄÝ, £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è WÀ£À
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ªÉâ¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj qÉvï£ÉÆÃmïUÀ¼À £ÀPÀ®Ä
¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛEgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The issue now is whether sufficient ingredients for an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC are available on record for the petitioners to
face the trial. The moment crime is registered, the petitioners were
before this Court in Criminal Petition No.9951 of 2021 challenging
the FIR. During the pendency of the petition, charge sheet comes
to be filed by the Police. It is then, the petitioners seek liberty to
challenge the same by withdrawing the petition. It is, therefore, the
present petition is preferred challenging the charge sheet. The
charge sheet alleges offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34
of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC 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 is the soul of Section 306. If one abets or drives a
person to the extent of commission of suicide, the offence would
become punishable for abetment to suicide. Abetment is defined
under 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, the presence of ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC is
sine qua non for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC and the presence of
ingredients under Section 107 need not detain this Court for long or
delve deep into such interpretation.
12. The Apex Court has in plethora of judgments, right from
MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH2 has held as follows:
"1. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 is filed by Mahendra
Singh, the husband and his mother Radhabai the mother-in-law
of the deceased Khema Bai. The appellant in Criminal Appeal
No. 402 of 1989 is Gayatri Bai the sister-in-law of the husband
of the deceased Khemabai. These three appellants stand
convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. where under they have been
sentenced to three years R.I. each. In so far as the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 are concerned, they have
undergone the sentence imposed on them. Sentence of the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1989 stands suspended
under orders of this Court after the appellant has undergone
sentence barely of about ten days. The charge under Section
306 I.P.C. is basically based on the dying declaration of the
deceased which when translated reads as follows:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat
me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to
marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my
sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being
harassed I want to die by burning."
(1995) Supp (3) SCC 731
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly
submitted that but for the statement of the deceased
there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be
inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the
acts of the appellants within Section 306 I.P.C. under
which the appellants have been punished. The dying
declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in
offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., because it
provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the
commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide
due to that reason, he 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 has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean
that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly
instigates any person to do a 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are
attracted on the statement of the deceased. The
conviction of the appellants under Section 306 I.P.C.
merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is
not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of
the charge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH3 the Apex
Court has held as follows:
"9. So far as the offence under Section 306 of IPC
is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial Court and the
High Court have committed gross error of law in holding
the accused-appellant guilty and therefore conviction
(2001) 9 SCC 618
under Section 306 IPC deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
10. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person
commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients
of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which
reads as under:
"107. Abetment of thing.-A person abets the doing of
a thing, who- First.- Instigate 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."
.... .... ....
13. The present case is not one which may fall under
clauses, secondly and thirdly of Section 107 of Indian Penal
Code. The case has to be decided by reference to the first
clause, i.e., whether the accused-appellant abetted the suicide
by instigating her to do so.
14. It is beyond doubt that Seema did commit a suicide.
Undisputedly, such suicide has been committed within a year
of the date of marriage. What happened on the date of
occurrence is very material for the purpose of recording a
finding on a question of abetment. Enough material is
available on record by way oral and documentary evidence
with which we shall now deal with.
.... .... ....
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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
In SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF M.P.4
the Apex holds as follows:
"12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the
suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that
had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the
appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told
the deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a
statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after
coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the
appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words.
The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going
through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the
deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him 'to go
and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does
not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate'
denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore,
is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common
knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the
moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a
fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words,
(2002) 5 SCC 371
said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998
ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th
July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive
language seriously, he had enough time in between to think
over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on
25th July, 1998 derived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide
by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the
abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998.
The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July,
1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct
result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is
alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and
also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped
notice of the courts below.
.... .... ....
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly
show that the deceased was in great stress and
depressed. One plausible reason could be that the
deceased was without any work or avocation and at the
same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the
statement of the wife -- Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a
frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly
suggest that such a note is not a handy work of a man
with sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of
the deceased, made a statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. before the Investigation Officer. She stated that
the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was
not doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July,
1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated
condition and was abusing her and other members of the
family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the
quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had
taken place on 25th July, 1998 and if the deceased came
back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be
said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct
result of the quarrel that had taken pace on 25th July,
1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances
independently, we are clearly of the view that the
ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant
case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is in the
statement of the wife that the deceased always remained
in a drunken condition. It is a common knowledge that
excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly
appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of
his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had
ensued on 25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated
to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of
materials on record and facts and circumstances of the
case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible
conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none
else, is responsible for his death."
(Emphasis supplied)
In S.S.CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN5 the Apex Court
has held as follows:
"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 scrutinize and critically examine
the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the
(2010) 12 SCC 190
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)
In M.ARJUNAN v. STATE6 it is held by the Apex Court as follows:
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence Under Section
306 Indian Penal Code 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 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, Accused
cannot be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.
8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O. 1-
letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be
sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was
directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the Appellant-
deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased,
the Appellant-Accused might have uttered some abusive
words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the
offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code From the
evidence brought on record and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of
Section 306 Indian Penal Code are not established and
the conviction of the Appellant-Accused Under Section
306 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained."
(Emphasis supplied)
(2019) 3 SCC 315
In GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB7 the Apex Court
holds as follows:
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified Under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 Appellant had the
mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The
conviction of 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.
.... .... ....
20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in
declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in
concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide, by
the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This
is nothing more than an inference, without any material
support. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis for sustaining
conviction of the Appellant, Under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code."
(Emphasis supplied)
(2020) 10 SCC 200
The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments has clearly held that
abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. It should be a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
commission of suicide failing which such cases of conviction cannot
be sustained as there should be clear mens rea on the part of the
accused to drive the deceased for commission of such act.
13. The Apex Court in MAHENDRA SINGH (supra) was
considering a case where the wife of the accused had committed
suicide. The allegation was that the husband was having illicit
relationship with the sister-in-law and, therefore, the wife had
committed suicide by burning. The Apex Court acquits the accused.
In the case of RAMESH KUMAR (supra), the Apex Court observes
that investigation was to goad, urge forward, provoke incite or
encourage to do an act. If these ingredients are not present such
actions would lead to acquittal. In the case of SANJU (supra) the
allegation was that the accused had used abusive language and
reportedly told the deceased to go and die which by itself would not
mean instigation to go and die. Therefore, the Apex Court in all the
aforesaid cases considered ingredients of abetment.
14. The Apex Court, in later cases, while interpreting Section
306 of the IPC holds that there should be a positive act, proximate
to the time or date of occurrence of the incident and that positive
act should be either direct or indirect. The Apex Court in the case
of AMALENDU PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL8 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
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
(2010) 1 SCC 707
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)
Later, the Apex Court in the case of UDE SINGH AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF HARYANA9 has held as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of
suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing
proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
(2019) 17 SCC 301
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. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the
act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit
suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306
IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws
the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds
are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing
more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if
the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being
the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of
all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could
be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of
one's action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person's
reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there
is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess
the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could
also vary for a variety of factors, including those of
background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each
case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER10 has held as follows:
"9. "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 306IPC. To
proceed against any person for the offence under Section
306IPC 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of GEO VARGHESE v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND
ANOTHER11 the Apex Court has held as follows:
2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
"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.
.... .... ....
42. In the absence of any specific allegation and material
of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be
travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial.
A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the
appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great
prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of
irrelevant nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
Following the aforesaid judgments the Apex Court in the case of
DAXABEN v. STAE OF GUJARAT12 has held as follows:
"8. Section 306 of the IPC reads:
"306. Abetment of suicide. -If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
2021 SCC OnLine SC 873
2022 SCC OnLine SC 936
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."
9. As argued by Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondents, what is required
to constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section
306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of
either direct or indirect act of incitement to the
commission of the offence of suicide."
(Emphasis supplied)
Again the Apex Court in MARIANO ANTO BRUNO AND ANOTHER
v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE13 has held as follows:
"42. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC,
there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased
to commit suicide finding no other option and the act
must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push
deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.
The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant
No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.
In the present case, both the elements are absent.
.... .... ....
48. It is well settled that the Courts ought to 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. Reference
may be made to the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh9, wherein this
Court set-aside the conviction of the accused for the offence
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387
under Section 306 IPC as ingredients of Section 306 IPC were
not satisfactorily proved. It was observed as under:--
"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 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 West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal10,
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 the 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)
In a later judgment the Apex Court in the case of V.P. SINGH v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS14 has held as follows:
"11. On perusal of the charge sheet, it was found
that there is no other independent witness whose
statement was recorded or who is cited as a witness to
the actual incident. In view of the letter exchanged
including his apology letter, it is quite obvious that the
complaint has embellishments and endeavour to make
out a case of abetment of suicide. If one may say, on
even reading of the charge sheet, on the basis of the
complaint as it is, there is still no case made out for
abetment of suicide.
... ... ...
16. In fact in Indrajit Kundu case (Supra) the judgment
referred to us in Sanju case (supra) was once again referred to
where the husband and wife's quarrel resulted in the husband
telling the wife "to go and die" and the suicide was committed
two days later, was not said to have proximity to the quarrel
even if stated in the suicide note.
17. To examine the factual matrix in the present
case, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find not
an iota of material on record even assuming the complete
charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a
conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of
the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we
appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young
son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the
present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is
a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the
institute. A contra position would create a lawless and
unmanageable situation in an educational institution.The
suicide note further shows that there is something to be
said about the relationship between the deceased and his
Criminal Appeal No.2103/2010 decided on 24-11-2022
father where in fact the deceased thought that his father
could be blamed for the episode and thus asked to not to
trouble his father. The anguish of the father ought not to
have been converted into a case of abetment of suicide
and certainly the investigation and the approach of the
trial Court could have been more realistic keeping in mind
the surrounding facts and circumstances in which the
suicide episode occurred."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. All aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court were acquitting
the accused who were convicted of offences punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC. In some cases the Apex Court directs High
Courts to entertain such petitions in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and following the said judgments
this Court in plethora of cases has quashed proceedings in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
16. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the Apex
Court as afore-quoted, right from 1995 to 2023, what would
unmistakably emerge is, that there must be mens rea and actus
reus for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, as there must be a
positive act to instigate in aiding suicide. Proximate to the death
must be a dynamic act, be it direct or indirect. It should be
proximate to the occurrence of death and it should be instigation of
the kind that it drives a person to commit suicide. Thus, if these
ingredients are present in a given case, exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would not be available. Likewise,
if they do not find place in a given case, this Court would step in
and obliterate the proceedings. If on the afore-quoted law, that is
laid down, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are re-assessed
what would unmistakably emerge is, that the death of the son of
the complainant has no proximity to any of the alleged instigations
of the petitioners.
17. The complaint itself narrates that the incident happened
in the month of October, 2021 with no date specified. Therefore, it
could be taken that it has happened from 1st October, 2021 to 31st
October, 2021. Litigations in the family galore - civil suit is filed by
the petitioners against the complainant and his family and crime is
registered against the complainant by the petitioners. Even that
was on 13-11-2021. They are legal proceedings taken up by the
petitioners against the complainant and his family members. If the
suicide note/death note is taken into consideration, it only narrates
that in the month of October 2021 the petitioners had hurled
abuses and have registered several proceedings against the
complainant and his family members and therefore, the son
commits suicide on 23-11-2021. There cannot be any proximity or
any instigation which would drive the son of the complainant to
commit suicide. As observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
cases, if the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are completely
absent, no offence under Section 306 can even be proved. It is,
therefore, in a given case this Court has to step in, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate those
proceedings which would, on the face of it, be abuse of the process
of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
18. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned High
Court Government Pleader in the case of K.C. MAHENDRA (supra)
is concerned, the facts obtaining in the case therein were entirely
different from what are obtaining in the case at hand. Therefore,
the said judgment becomes distinguishable without much ado. The
facts obtaining in the case at hand are circumstances enough for
this Court to interfere and terminate the proceedings, failing which
it would result in miscarriage of justice.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.50169 of 2022
pending before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City arising out of
Charge Sheet in Crime No.444 of 2021 of
Pulikeshinagar Police Station stand quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of petitioners under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence
the other proceedings between the parties, before any
other fora, or against any other accused.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bkp/CT:MJ
