Umang Singhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 197 MP

                                      1
                                                       M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021



THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                       M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021
                            Umang Singhar
                                   Versus
                State of Madhya Pradesh & another
 Date of Order             05.01.2022
 Bench Constituted         Single Bench
 Order delivered by        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
 Whether approved          ---
 for reporting
 Name of counsel for For petitioner: Mr. Sankalp Kochar
 parties             Advocate and Mr. Sami Ali, Advocate.
                     For respondent No.1/State: Mr. Vivek

Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For respondent No.2: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate.

Law laid down ---

Significant Para Nos. ---

Reserved on: 24.11.2021 Delivered on: 05.01.2022 (O R D E R) (05.01.2022) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is seeking following relief (s):-

(i) Call for the case diary and record of FIR bearing Crime No.375/2021 dt.17.05.2021 registered at P.S. Shahpura, District-Bhopal (M.P.), in the interest of justice.

(ii) To quash and set aside FIR bearing Crime No.375/2021 dt.17.05.2021 as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No.375/2021 registered at P.S.

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

Shahpura, District-Bhopal (M.P.), in the interest of justice.

(iii) To grant any other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.

3. Since, the basic relief as claimed by the petitioner in this petition is for quashing the FIR dated 17.05.2021 registered against him vide Crime No.375/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal, therefore, to resolve the controversy involved in the case so also to answer the question as to whether the offence registered against the petitioner on the basis of material collected by the prosecution is proper or the material so collected is not sufficient to constitute an offence and on that basis the FIR can be quashed, the facts of the case in nutshell are that:-

(3.1)        The petitioner who belongs to Indian National
             Congress party, is an elected Member of
             Legislative     Assembly          (MLA)     from         the

constituency of Gandwani, District Dhar. (3.2) The genesis of this case arises from an incident when one Ms. Sonia Bharadwaj committed suicide in the petitioner's house on 16.05.2021 leaving behind a suicide note mentioning therein that she is committing suicide at her own will for which nobody is to be blamed.

(3.3) As per the material collected by the prosecution, also the statements of mother and son of the deceased recorded by the police, this fact has come out that the deceased was a patient of Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD), which is a serious mental disorder and is a form of acute depression and hypo-mania. The deceased was undergoing treatment of BPAD at Bansal Hospital, Bhopal as

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

also Shri Krishna Hospital, Ambala, Haryana. (3.4) After the death of Ms. Sonia Bharadwaj, her son Aaryan Bharadwaj and her mother Mrs. Kunti Devi reached Bhopal and performed cremation. However, the petitioner had also attended the cremation ceremony of deceased at Bhopal. (3.5) The prosecution projected the story like that the deceased was in relation with the petitioner and used to reside with him in his house, but as the petitioner was harassing her mentally and physically, therefore, left with no option, Ms. Sonia Bharadwaj committed suicide. Accordingly, by registering the FIR against the petitioner, he has been made accused under Section 306 of the IPC. (3.6) However, the statements of mother and son of the deceased got recorded on 17.05.2021 wherein they did not blame the petitioner for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Although, within a time gap of 30 minutes, another statement of son of deceased got recorded by the police and in the second round also, he has not alleged anything against the petitioner. As per the petitioner, even in absence of any material ingredient, the police registered the FIR against him.

(3.7) Thereafter, the petitioner against registration of FIR, has approached the Inspector General of Police by making a representation, but nothing has been done.

(3.8) Moreover, the son of the deceased Aaryan Bharadwaj came out in media and also in public to inform that the police is abusing its power by pressurizing him to give statement against the petitioner so as to implicate him in his mother's

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

suicide case. Thereafter, the son of the deceased has approached the Director General of Police and also to Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh saying that the petitioner had no role in the matter nor is he responsible for his mother's death. The son and mother of the deceased have filed their affidavits stating therein that the petitioner and deceased had cordial relations and whenever deceased went to Bhopal, she used to stay in the petitioner's house. It has also been mentioned that the deceased had never complained regarding any type misbehaviour or harassment done by the petitioner. They have also admitted that the deceased was suffering from BPAD and because of that she often faced depression. Without there being any allegation levelled by the mother and son of the deceased against the petitioner, the police registered the FIR against him at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal, therefore, left with no option, this petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He submits that the petitioner has neither instigated nor abeted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that when the deceased in her suicide note had mentioned that nobody is to be blamed for her suicide then implicating the petitioner in the matter, is nothing but an abuse of power. He also submits that the mother and son of the deceased in their statements have very clearly stated that the deceased in her lifetime had never complained regarding any harassment or ill-treatment done by the petitioner. He submits that they have also admitted that the deceased was suffering

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

from BPAD and undergoing treatment in various hospitals. He also submits that before registering the FIR, no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the police. He submits that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are considered to be true then also the ingredients of the offence of 'abetment to commit suicide' punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are not attracted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgments of the Supreme Court viz. (2001) 9 SCC 618 [Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh]; (2004) 13 SCC 129 [Randhir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab]; (2010) 8 SCC 628 [Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another]; (2010) 12 SCC 190 [S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another]; (2011) 3 SCC 626 [M. Mohan Vs. State] and (2017) 1 SCC 433 [Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab].

5. Mr. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that exercising the power provided under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR that too in the mid of investigation, is not proper. He submits that even otherwise from the recital of the suicide note, it is clear that the petitioner used to harass the deceased mentally and emotionally, therefore, left with no option, she committed suicide and as such, the police did nothing wrong in implicating the petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC. He submits that in the case-diary a CD is also available which reveals that this is not a fit case wherein the power provided under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised for quashing the FIR. To bolster his submission, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance upon a case of Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 [Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

Maharashtra and Others] wherein the Supreme Court relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court has reached at the conclusion that as to when the power provided under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court for quashing the FIR. He submits that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has observed that during investigation or till the period of filing the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC, power provided Section 482 should not be exercised. He has also placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal] wherein it has been held that the power provided under Section 482 cannot be exercised by the Court at the stage when investigation is yet to be completed. He has further relied upon an order dated 07.08.2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6230/2018 [Ashish Raj Vs. State of M.P.] wherein the High Court in a petition filed under Section under Section 482 of the CrPC has refused to quash the FIR registered under Section 306 of the IPC saying that when the ingredients of offence are disclosed, the power provided under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be exercised.

6. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 relying upon the reply filed has supported the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there were familiar relations between the petitioner and deceased. He also submits that the conduct of the petitioner towards the deceased was very good. He also submits that the petitioner had never misbehaved with the deceased.

7. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. To reach the conclusion as to whether the prosecution has rightly implicated the petitioner in the offence registered under Section 306 of the IPC, first of all, I have to see the foundation of registration of offence. During the course

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

of investigation, the prosecution has collected a suicide note which has following contents:-

"vc eS vkSj lgu ugha dj ldrhA eSus viuh rjQ ls lc dqN fd;kA ij meax dk xqLlk cgksr T;knk gS eq>s Mj yxrk gSA oks eq>s viuh Life esa txg ugh nsuk pkgrkA mldh fdlh Hkh pht dks Touch djks rks mldks cqjk yxrk gSA bl ckj Hkh eSa tcjnLrh Hkksiky vkbZ oks rks pkgrk gh ugha Fkk fd eSa Hkksiky vkÅA vk;Zu Sorry eSa rsjh life ds fy, dqN ugha dj ikbZA iwjh Life Try fd;kA Aaryan dh Life set d: ij ugha dj ikbZA eSa tks dqN Hkh dj jgh gwWa viuh ethZ ls dj jgh gWwA fdlh dh dksbZ xyrh ugha gSA Umang vkids lkFk eSus lkspk Fkk Life set gks tk,xh I Love You dksf'k'k dh Adjust djus dh ij vkius txg uh nh eq>s viuh Life esaA Aaryan Sorry-I Love You"

The aforesaid recital of the suicide note does not indicate that the deceased has made any allegation indicating that the petitioner at any point of time had instigated or done anything which abetted her for committing suicide. Moreover, the suicide note indicates that it is the deceased who was upset with the petitioner because he was not giving her much attention. The suicide note also reveals that the deceased was expecting something more from the petitioner, but as she was not getting the same and her expectations were not fulfilled, therefore, she committed suicide. The case-diary also contains the documents showing that the deceased was undergoing treatment of BPAD from Bansal and Shri Krishna Hospitals. In the statements of the mother and son of the deceased recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 17.05.2021, they have not made any allegation against the petitioner. Thereafter, in the statement of son of the deceased recorded by the police on the next day of the incident i.e. on 18.05.2021, he has nowhere mentioned that the deceased has committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment done by the petitioner and on the contrary, he has very categorically stated that the relations between the petitioner's family and his family were cordial. Moreso, in the statement of the mother of the deceased

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

recorded on 18.05.2021, she has stated that a talk with regard to marriage of the petitioner and deceased was going on between them as the petitioner had shown interest to get married with the deceased, but she has also not stated that her daughter has committed suicide because of ill-treatment of the petitioner. Although, she has stated that the deceased was unhappy as her marriage could not be solemnized with the petitioner and that might be a reason for committing suicide.

9. However, in the FIR lodged by the police officer it is mentioned that on the basis of suicide note, the police arrived at the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide for the reason that despite living with the petitioner in live-in relation for last two months, her marriage could not be solemnized with him. On the basis of suicide note, it is also mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner was a very short tempered person. The FIR clearly indicates that the foundation of registration of offence was nothing but the suicide note which reads as under:-

"cts lwpuk eq>s fujh{kd Fkkuk izHkkjh egsUnz dqekj feJk ls gS fd eSa Fkkuk 'kkgiqjk Hkksiky esa Fkkuk izHkkjh ds in ij inLFk gwWaA Fkkuk 'kkgiqjk ds exZ Ø[email protected] /kkjk 174 tkQkS dh e`frdk lksfu;k Hkkj}kt ifr latho dqekj mez 40 lky fu-e-ua-02 lsBh bDyso cynso uxj vackyk dh e`R;q dh tkap mfu fjadw tkVo }kjk dh xbZ ftlds }kjk exZ tkap dk izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA exZ tkap izfrosnu ds vuqlkj e`frdk lksfu;k Hkkj}kt dk lqlkbZM uksV ?kVuk LFky ls tCr fd;k x;k] ftlesa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ls izdV gksrk gS fd og meax fla?kkj ls vHkh rd vk'kkfUor Fkh] D;ksfa d bl laca/k esa e`frdk lksfu;k Hkkj}kt o meax fla?kkj ds ifjokjtuksa us fnlacj 2020 esa jksdk dh jLe FkhA meax fla?kkj dk xqLlSy LoHkko dk gksuk rFkk e`frdk dks de le; nsus ls Hkh og nq[kh FkhA blh dkj.k nq[kh gksdj mlus 'kknh u gksus ds dkj.k ,oa izrkfMr gksus ds dkj.k vkRegR;k dh gSA e`frdk lksfu;k Hkkj}kt meax fla?kkj ds lkFk muds fuokl&ch&238 'kkgiqjk esa djhc 02 ekg ls fcuk fookg ds fyo&bo&fjys'ku esa jg jgh Fkh vkSj e`frdk us meax fla?kkj ds fuokl ds 'k;ud{k esa vlkekU; ifjfLFkfr esa Qkalh yxkdj vkRegR;k dkfjr dh gSA tkap esa e`frdk dh ih,e fjiksVZ Hkh izkIr dh xbZ rFkk lkf{k;ksa ds dFku fy;s x;sA vr% lEiw.kZ exZ tkap esa meax fla?kkj ds }kjk e`frdk lksfu;k Hkkj}kt dks vkRegR;k ds fy;s nqLisfjr djus laca/kh rF; izdV gksus ls meax fla?kkj ds fo:) /kkjk 306 Hkknfo ds varxZr vijk/k ?kfVr gksuk ik;k tkus ls izdj.k iathc) dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA udy exZ bVhaes'ku vuqlkj fuEukuqlkj gS&lwpd x.ks'k fla?kkj firk HkSjksflag fla?kkj mez 28 lky fuoklh e-ua- ch 238 'kkgiqjk Hkksiky eks-ua-9630198555 us Fkkuk mifLFkr vkdj lwpuk fn;k fd eS mijksDr fy[kk;s irs ij jgrk gWw vius ckl ds lkFk caxys ij rFkk muds vkfQl esaVusal dk dke djrk gWwA eS ftl irs ij jgrk gWw og esjs ckl dk ?kj gS] mlh ?kj 15 fnu ls mudh ifjfpr lksfu;k

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

Hkkj}kt Hkh jg jgh FkhA tks ,d vyx dejs es jg jgh FkhA tks njokts can fd;s gq;s FkhA nksigj ds [email protected] cts mlds dejs dk njoktk [kV[kVk;k rks ugha [kksyk rks eSus f[kMdh ls >kddj ns[kk rks lksfu;k Hkkj}kt Qkalh ds Qans ij yVdh gqbZ FkhA ftlus nqiVVs dk Qank cukdj Qkalh yxkbZ FkhA ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ FkhA blds ckn eSus vius ckl dks ;s ckr crkbZA blds ckn iqfyl ekSds ij vkbZA rks lwpuk nsrk gWw dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA lwpuk i<dj ns[kh esjs cksys vuqlkj fy[kh xbZ gSA gLrk{kj djrk gWwA lwpuk exZ Ø[email protected] /kkjk 174 tkQkS dk iathc) dj tkap esa fy;k x;kA gLrk{kj lwpd x.ks'k ds fgUnh esa gLrk{kj dk;ehdrkZ izvkj-459 dUgS;kyky vaxzsth esa fnukad [email protected]@21"

It is to be seen as to whether in the suicide note, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner were available or not, therefore, it would be apt to go through Section 306 of the IPC which reads as under:-

"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."

From perusal of Section 306 of the IPC, it is clear that abetment to commit suicide is a material ingredient. The word abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC which reads as under:-

"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

From perusal of aforesaid provisions and the requirement of material ingredients about abetment, it is clear that there must be an active role of an accused for instigating or aiding the

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

things which abeted the deceased for committing suicide and then only offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that process in doing of a thing. Without there being a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid things for committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. If a particular act is done then there has to be a clear mens rea for committing the offence. From the over all circumstances existing in the case, if it is revealed that the deceased had no option but to commit suicide and it was the accused who intended to push her into the situation of committing suicide, then only the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are fulfilled.

10. Here in the present case, the suicide note nowhere indicates that it was the petitioner who at any point of time had committed such an act, which comes under the definition of abetment. Even the deceased had not disclosed about any type of instigation done by the petitioner which compelled her to commit suicide, on the contrary, the suicide note reflects that the deceased was keeping high hopes from the petitioner and somehow as those hopes were not fulfilled, therefore, she got depressed and committed suicide mentioning in her suicide note that nobody is to be blamed for her suicide. The suicide note otherwise speaks about the nature and temperament of deceased showing that she was a hyper-sensitive lady and under depression, committed suicide. Further, the nearest relatives of the deceased i.e. her mother and son in their statements have neither said anything against the petitioner nor said that the deceased in her lifetime had ever complained about any ill-treatment, cruelty and harassment done by the petitioner, then it is unclear as to how the prosecution reached the conclusion that the petitioner is an accused of offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Under such circumstances,

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

implicating the petitioner in the matter by presuming things which were even not available on record nor the part of suicide note, is not proper.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) while considering the required ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC has 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 W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] 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."

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) while dealing with a case of Section 306 of the IPC has observed as under:-

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC."

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

Moreso, in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court after considering the required of ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC has observed as under:-

"13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant- accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work.

15. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note. It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC.

16. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the person concerned by his acts, words, etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short.

17. We have already explained that the baseless and irrelevant allegations could not be used as a basis for prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, we have already considered Section 294(b) IPC also. We have not been able to find anything. Under such circumstances, where the FIR itself does not have any material or is not capable of being viewed as having material for offences under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], it would be only proper to quash the FIR and the further proceedings."

The Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena (supra) while dealing with the case of Section 306 of the IPC has observed as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

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."

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

In the case of M. Mohan (supra), the Supreme Court not only dealt with the material ingredients for constituting the offence of Section 306 of the IPC, but also considered as to when the power of Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised for quashing the proceeding initiated against the accused under Section 306 of the IPC. The Supreme Court in the said case has observed as under:-

"44. 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.

* * *

50. The next question which arises in this case is that in view of the settled legal position whether the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the facts and circumstances of this case?

51. This Court had an occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] this Court summarised some categories of cases where the High Court in its inherent power can and should exercise, to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

* * *

53. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699] observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the Court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts."

The Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) after considering the material ingredients for constituting the offence of Section 306 of the IPC has observed as under:-

"26. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the wilful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.

27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) 13 SCC 129], and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder: (SCC p. 134, paras 12-13) "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], this Court has observed that the courts 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)

28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [(2010) 1 SCC 707].

29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190].

* * *

32. In the wake of the above determination, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed. The appellant would be set at liberty from custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case."

12. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(supra) on which learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance, the Supreme Court in paragraph-80 of its order has observed as under:-

"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

However, I am not convinced with the submissions as have been made by learned Deputy Advocate General for the reason that the circumstances in the present case are altogether different. In my opinion, the contents of suicide note do not constitute any offence of Section 306 against the petitioner and even otherwise, the statements of mother and son of the deceased clearly indicate that they do not want to lodge any prosecution against the petitioner because according to them the petitioner was not at fault nor the deceased has committed suicide because of the attitude of the petitioner. Even otherwise, respondent No.2/mother of the deceased has also supported the averments made in the petition and in her reply, she has also stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter whereas he never harassed the deceased nor committed any act of cruelty towards her. Respondent No.2 in her reply has also stated that the deceased was suffering from BPAD and as she was unhappy and under depression, therefore, committed suicide. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on which learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance the Supreme Court in paragraph 57(iii) has dealt with the circumstances as to when power under Section 482 can be exercised. Paragraph 57 (iii) reads thus:-

M.Cr.C. No.25707 of 2021

"57...........

i).......

ii)......

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;"

13. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that if the contents of FIR do not disclose any type of offence against a person then the investigation cannot be permitted to go on. In the present case considering the over all circumstances of the case as also the FIR which has been lodged by presuming things which are not available in the suicide note, I do not find that any offence is made out against the petitioner. Moreover, the nearest relatives of the deceased i.e. mother and son in their statements have categorically said that they do not have any grievance with the petitioner nor they want to initiate any prosecution against him. However, if the contents of FIR on their face value are considered to be correct even then no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court finds that registration of FIR against the petitioner by presuming things which are not available in the suicide note, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and if the power provided under Section 482 of the CrPC is exercised for quashing the said FIR, then there would no illegality on the part of this Court.

14. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am inclined to allow this petition and as such, it is allowed. Consequently, FIR dated 17.05.2021 registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.375/2021 at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby quashed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2022.01.06 10:19:50 +05'30'