Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Mobin Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
I N T H E H I G H C O U RT O F M A D H YA P R A D E S H
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.225 OF 2016
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH ALAWA S/O SHRI BUDA ALAWA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS
FOREST RANGE OFFICER, SAOLIGARH,
DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION LAMTA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ATMARAM BEN - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.3290 OF 2016
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. MOBIN QURESHI S/O LATE MOHD.
HAKIM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGER FOREST
KATANGI, BALAGHAT, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 12/21/2023
7:25:36 PM
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION
LAMTA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GAJENDRA PRASAD BHONGADE S/O
JAGLAL BHONGADE, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS R/O CHAMANTOLA,
POLICE STATION LAMTA, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ATMARAM BEN - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE) (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
.......................................................................................
Reserved on : 07.12.2023
Pronounced on : 21.12.2023
..................................................................................................
These petitions having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed following:
ORDER
These petitions under Section 482 of the of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioners to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for seeking quashment of F.I.R.
bearing Crime No.23/2014 dated 16.02.2014 registered at Police Station
Lamta, District Balaghat (MP) for commission of offence under Section
306/34 of IPC and the entire consequential criminal proceedings
pursuant to filing of charge-sheet and also the proceedings pending in
Session Trial No.309/2015 before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Balaghat (MP).
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.02.2014, complainant
Gajendra Prasad Bhongade resident of Chaman Tola, Lamta, District
Balaghat informed the police Lamta that his father Jaglal Bhongade was
posted as Forest Guard in forest department. On 11.02.2014, at around
09:00 am, he had left home for his duties, but did not return the home
till night. Thereafter, he made a search for his father, but he could not be
traced. Second day, he informed Mohd. Mobin Qureshi, Deputy Ranger
of the Forest Department and the police about missing of his father.
Thereafter, he alongwith the forest officials searched for his father in the
forest. It is stated that his father was having some problem in his knees.
He used to go from his cycle to perform his duties. In search, he was
found hanging in a Ghotiya Tree behind the Railway Crossing inside the
forest. Merg intimation was registered.
3. In the course of investigation and enquiry, one suicide note was
seized from the body of deceased. In post-mortem report, cause of
deceased death was found asphyxia due to hanging. After investigation,
police filed the charge-sheet against the accused/petitioners in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class. The case being triable by the Sessions
Court, it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Petitioners are
facing trial for commission of offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.
4. It is an admitted fact that at the relevant point of time, Mukesh
Alawa (petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.225 of 2016) was posted as Forest
Range Officer and Mohd. Mobin Qureshi (petitioner in M.Cr.C.
No.3290 of 2016) was posted as Deputy Forest Ranger and deceased
Jaglal Bhongade was posted as Forest Guard (beat guard) in North
Lamta Range (Territorial), District Balaghat (MP).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of this
Court towards the suicide note alleged to have been drawn by the
deceased before his death, which reads as under:-
^^izfr]
vykok
jsatj lkgc ueLdkj]
mRrj lk- ykerk
ekschu dqjS'kh dks Hkh] ueLdkj
?kVdh VksykA
lk- vkids dkj.k eq>s ejuk iM+ jgk gS A
^^d{k Ø- 1242 esa ykbu tykbZ dk dk;Z rk- 11-02-2014] Q1
djk;k x;kA ckn esa eq>s Bhd ugha yx jgk Fkk eSusa lkgc ls eq>s chV
ls gVkus ds fy;s dgk FkkA ysfdu lkgc us /;ku ugha fn;k D;ksafd
fMIVh lkgc ls Hkh dgk x;k FkkA eq>s gVk;s ugha blfy, eSusa Lo;a ejus
dh lksp fy;kA**
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this
Court towards the various case laws and it is argued on behalf of the
petitioners that even if, all allegations made against the
accused/petitioners in the suicide note are taken at their face value, their
act and conduct did not come under the purview of abetment of suicide.
It is submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners, much
less; the alleged act of abetment as the material collected does not
disclose the essential ingredients of the abetment of suicide alleged
against the petitioners. It is further submitted that to constitute the
commission of offence of abetment and to convict a person under
Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence; an active act or direct act having close proximity with the act of
commission which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even
if, the entire suicide note is accepted as true, then it cannot be said that
petitioners in any way intended to instigate, incite or encourage the
deceased for commission of suicide. It is also submitted that there was
official relationship between the deceased and the petitioners. Even if,
for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that deceased had asked them to
change his duty from a particular beat and his duty was not changed that
does not mean that he was abetted or incited to commit suicide.
8. The allegations made in the suicide note are not relevant for
prosecution of offence under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, placing
reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8
SCC 628 and Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2018 on
17.05.2018 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of
2018] and a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Bench at
Indore, in the case of Abhay Kumar Katare Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C. No.5952 of 2018 on 26.03.2018, has
submitted that act and conduct of the petitioners does not come under
the purview of abetment of suicide. Thus, it is prayed that entire
criminal proceedings pending on the case file in the Court of IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat arising out of F.I.R. bearing Crime
No.23/2014 may be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for quashment of the proceedings. It is submitted that deceased
before his death has written suicide note and the contents of the suicide
note suggests that the deceased had prayed both the petitioners who
were posted as Forest Ranger & Deputy Forest Ranger to change his
duty from a particular beat as he was having some problem in his knees,
but they did not take care of his request and as such, they instigated the
deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC. It
is further submitted that witnesses Krishna Kumar, Salik Ram, Bhagrata
Bhongade (wife of the deceased) in their statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that deceased committed
suicide as his beat was not changed despite his request. Thus, he has
prayed for dismissal of both the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the petitioners.
10. Having perused the relevant facts and hearing the contentions
made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that
following issue requires determination in the instant case:-
"Whether the High Court to prevent the abuse of
process of court can exercise its inherent power under
section 482 of Cr.P.C and can quash the proceedings
even after its committal to the Court of Session and
framing of charge if it comes to a conclusion that such
proceeding is frivolous or vexatious?"
11. Before dwelling upon the rival submissions put-forth by learned
counsel for the parties, it shall be useful to reiterate the law as laid down
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in various case laws in which scope of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been dealt with for quashment of the criminal
proceedings.
12. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of
Delhi); (2013) 9 SCC 293, has observed that exercising the power
provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding, the
same parameters would be applicable even at the later stage, which are
available at the initial stage like before commencement of actual trial, at
the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal. This Court is
aware of the fact that exercise of inherent power provided under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
inquiry to ascertain whether the evidence in question is reliable or not
and inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and carefully with
caution, but at the same time, Section 482 empowers the High Court to
prevent the abuse of process of Court.
13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali and Ors. vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023
[arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.12459 of 2022] judgment dated
08.08.2023 observed in para 12 as under:-
"12. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading to
the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged."
14. In Prashant Bharti's case (supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court while
taking note of the law laid down in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal
Kapoor; (2013) 3 SCC 330 has observed as under:-
"22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing
of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a
High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has
been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors.
vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (supra) wherein this Court inter
alia held as under:-
29. The issue being examined in the instant
case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the
initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at
the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of
committal, or even at the stage of framing of
charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same
parameters would naturally be available for later
stages as well. The power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages
referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching
consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the
prosecution's/ complainant's case without allowing
the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such
a determination must always be rendered with
caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its
inherent jurisdiction under Section - 482 of the
Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that
the material produced by the accused is such, that
would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence
is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such, as would rule
out and displace the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused; and the
material produced is such, as would clearly reject
and overrule the veracity of the allegations
contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to
rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled
by the prosecution/complainant, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. For this the
material relied upon by the defence should not have
been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably
refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable
quality. The material relied upon by the accused
should be such, as would persuade a reasonable
person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of
the accusations as false. In such a situation, the
judicial conscience of the High Court would
persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings,
for that would prevent abuse of process of the court,
and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the
foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the
following steps to determine the veracity of a
prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by
invoking the power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon
by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the
complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court, and
would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused."
15. In Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another; (2012)
13 SCC 614, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed in para 14 as under:-
"14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at
the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is
inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in
case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal
complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a
triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused
should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding
that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution
which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to
interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance
thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law.
This is the core basis on which the power to interfere
with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized
to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though
available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be
exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and
circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above,
namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled
by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if
so warranted, such power would be available for exercise
not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but
also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after
framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the
power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge
would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the
materials revealed by the investigation carried out
usually comes on record and such materials can be
looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt
or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of
drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted
in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the
commission of the offence alleged against the accused."
16. In State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others; 1992
SCC (Cri) 426, Hon'ble the Apex Court identified the following cases in
which FIR/complaint can be quashed:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just, conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
17. A perusal of case diary reveals that deceased in his suicide note
has made no specific allegation against the petitioners except that he had
requested them to change his beat, but as his beat was not changed, he
has committed suicide. During investigation, statements of witnesses
Krishna Kumar, Salik Ram, Bhagrata Bhongade (wife of the deceased),
Gajendra (son of the deceased), Abdul Naim Khan, Santlal, Nawab
Khan and Dhanraj Lilhare were recorded. The sense of aforesaid
statements is that accused persons who were posted as Forest Ranger
and Deputy Ranger had not given heed to the request of deceased to
transfer him from a particular beat and as such, they instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. Now, the question that arises for
consideration whether the conduct of any of the accused person as stated
in suicide note or brought forth by statements of witnesses constitute
abetment of suicide.
18. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Abetment of
suicide', reads as under:-
"Section 306 - Abatment 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."
19. Term 'Abetment' has been defined under Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:-
"Section 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 2 which has been inserted along with
Section 107 reads as under:-
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
20. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neelesh Jat and
Another Vs. State of M.P.; 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7704, in paragraphs
9, 10 and 11 observed as under:-
"9. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618 that:
"To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
it 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
the instigation. (Emphasis supplied)"
10. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
2010 Cri LJ 2110 (Supreme Court) that-
"20. 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.
21. 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 this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide.
(Emphasis supplied)"
11. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2008 Cri LJ
2569 (Supreme Court) that-
"8. 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 it required
before a person can he said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC."
21. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abhay Kumar
Katare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C. No.5952 of
2018 on 26.03.2018 has observed in para 14 as under:-
"14. Therefore, to constitute the commission of an
offence of abetment of suicide, an element of mens rea is
an essential ingredient as the abetment involves a mental
preparedness with an intention to instigation, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act or a thing. Besides, such
process of instigation etc., must have close proximity
with the act of commission of suicide. Therefore, a
person cannot be accused or punished for an offence of
abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, unless; the
aforesaid requirement of law is satisfied as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sanju alias
Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 2002 SC 1998 and Madan Mohan Singh Vs.
State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628."
22. Reverting back to the facts of the case at hand, it is apparent that
the deceased before committing suicide wrote suicide note. A perusal of
suicide note makes it apparent that even if; the entire suicide note is
accepted as it is, alongwith F.I.R., no ingredient of Section 306 of IPC
could be spelt out from the same. The sole grievance of the deceased
was that despite his request, the petitioners who at the relevant time
were posted as Forest Range Officer and Deputy Range Officer had not
transferred him to another beat.
23. A perusal of the suicide note makes it clear that there is nothing in
the suicide note which could even distantly view as an offence much
less under Section 306 of IPC. I do not find anything in the suicide note
or in the statements of witnesses which could suggest as abetment to
commit suicide. In such matters, there must be allegations to the effect
that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to
commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in conspiracy to
do so or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal
omission to bring about the suicide.
24. On scanning & examination of the suicide note and the material
available in the charge-sheet, only it reveals that the suicide note is a
rhetoric document in the nature of a complaint about not transferring
him as per the wishes of the deceased. On the basis of suicide note, it
cannot be said that the accused, who were posted as superior officers,
ever intended that deceased who was a forest guard should commit
suicide or should end his life and did anything on that behalf. Even if, it
is accepted that the accused persons did not change his duty, it does not
mean that the accused intended or knew that he would commit suicide
because of this.
25. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs.
State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, in much or less
similar position observed in paragraphs 13 & 14 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 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543], 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."
26. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaijnath Kondiba
Khandke Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and Another passed in Criminal
Appeal No.765 of 2018 on 17.05.2018 [arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of 2018] has observed in para 9 as under:-
"9. .......... As a superior officer, if some work was
assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that
count it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind or
criminal intent. The exigencies of work and the situation
may call for certain action on part of a superior including
stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month. That
action simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer
against such superior officer. The allegations in the FIR
are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the
requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the
facts in the present case stand on a footing better than
that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is
absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section
306 IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest of
justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the
appellant are required to be quashed."
27. In the light of above pronouncements by Hon'ble the Apex Court
as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and adverting to the facts
& circumstances of the case at hand, even if, it is accepted that despite
deceased's prayer to transfer him from a particular beat to other beat
was not accepted, the same cannot be considered as an abetment,
incitement or instigation to commit suicide. It is apparent that deceased
committed suicide only because petitioners i.e. Forest Range Officer and
Deputy Range Officer did not transfer him. However, it is apparent that
the petitioners had no intention of instigation or goading the deceased to
commit suicide.
28. Even otherwise, it is not apparent whether petitioners i.e. Forest
Range Officer and Deputy Forest Range Officer were competent to
transfer a forest guard from a particular beat to other beat or not.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that accused
persons created such a situation by not transferring the deceased where
the deceased was left with no option, but to commit suicide. It appears
that the deceased was probably ultrasensitive. It is also worth
mentioning that deceased was having problem in his knees, therefore,
the possibility of taking his own life by deceased due to aliment also
cannot be ruled out. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed
that petitioners had not given any heed to his request of transfer, he
could have made application/representation to the higher forest officials
and to the Government; but unfortunately, he did not make any
application to the higher forest officials & forest department and
impetuously took the extreme step by hanging himself with a tree in
jungle. This clearly was an over action on the part of the deceased. But
in circumstances of the case, no abetment or mens rea on the part of
petitioners made to commit the offence. Thus, there is no sufficient
ground to proceed against the petitioners for commission of offence
under Section 306 of IPC.
29. Consequently, both the petitions (M.Cr.C. No.225 of 2016 and
M.Cr.C. No.3290 of 2016) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioners are allowed and the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.23/2014 dated
16.02.2014 registered at Police Station Lamta, District Balaghat (MP)
for commission of offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and the entire
consequential criminal proceedings pursuant to filing of charge-sheet
and also the proceedings pending in Session Trial No.309/2015 before
the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat (MP) are quashed and set-
aside.
30. A copy of this order be sent down to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
