Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hardik Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
th
ON THE 13 OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39292 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HARDIK PATEL S/O SHRI RATILAL PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: REGIONAL
BUSINESS HEAD IN INNOVATIVE RETAIL
1.
CONCEPTS PVT. LTD. 6, RAICHAND NAGAR,
NEAR VISAT PETROL PUMP, SABARMATI
(GUJARAT)
ANAND RAVAL S/O SHRI NITINBHAI RAVAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST.
GENERAL MANGER IN INNOVATIVE RETAIL
CONCEPTS PVT LTD. 48, SHIVANAND
2. BUNGALOWS, INDRAPURI TOWNSHIP,
JASHIDANGAR VATWA ROAD, AHMEDABAD
GUJARAT AND PRESENT ADDRESS AT B2/1101,
ELITA PROMENADE, RBI LAYOUT, JP NAGAR 7
TH PHASE, BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)
CAPTAIN AMRIT KOIJAM S/O SHRI RAJEN
KOIJAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS HEAD IN INNOVATIVE RETAIL
3.
CONCEPTS PVT. LTD. 12, SHUBHAM RESIDENCY,
VILLAGE KOLAT, CHANGODAR, AHMEDABAD
(GUJARAT)
RAVI SHARMA S/O SHRI PRAKASH CHAND
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SR. MANAGER AT INNOVATIVE
RETAIL CONCEPTS PVT LTD S/4, SHRIVDHAM -3,
4.
19-20, KGN BAGH, NIWARU ROAD, JHOTWARA,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN AND PRESENT ADDRESS
AT S2 SAI PRIDE, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURE (KARNATAKA)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SURENDRA SINGH, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI R.S.
RAGHUWANSHI, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
2
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
1. HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BHAWARKUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
NEHA AGRAWAL (MITTAL) W/O LATE SHRI
2. MITESH MITTAL R/O: 307, APPLE RESIDENCY,
NEAR AGRASEN SQUARE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA, G.A./P.L. FOR THE STATE AND SHRI AMIT
BHATIA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/OBJECTOR)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 12.04.2023
Pronounced on : 13.06.2023
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet filed in respect of Crime
No.149/2021, registered at police station Bhanwarkuna, District
Indore under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also
for quashing the further proceedings pending before the Ninth
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.465/2022.
2] In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are
the Office bearers of Super Market Grocery Supplies Private Limited
which is also carrying on its business in the name and style of "Big
Basket" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and are
responsible for the suicide of Mitesh Mittal, the Purchase Manager of
the Company in the wee hours of 27.01.2021. After an enquiry under
Section 174 of Cr.P.C., the First Information Report (FIR), under
Section 306/34 of IPC was lodged on 13.02.2021, alleging that from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
22.01.2021 to 26.01.2021, the petitioners harassed the deceased
Mitesh Mittal in connection with certain financial irregularities
committed in the Indore Branch of the said Company which led to
his suicide in the early hours on 27.01.2021 as Mitesh, being the
Deputy Manager since last five years was also questioned
rigourously along with other employees of the Company at Indore. It
is not disputed that the aforesaid in-house enquiry continued from
22.01.2021 to 26.01.2021; and on 26.01.2021, after the deceased
Mitesh left the Office in the late at night (at around 03.30 AM in the
morning of 27.01.2021), soon after reaching his house, he committed
suicide by consuming poison (celphos). It is alleged that due to
extreme mental harassment by the present petitioners during the
course of in-house enquiry, the deceased was traumatised and thus
committed suicide.
3] The present petition has been filed stating that no case of
abetment of suicide is made out against the petitioners as the
ingredients of Section 107/306 of IPC are clearly missing. Shri
Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn
the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioners are the office
bearers of the Company, and all of them are highly educated persons.
It is further submitted that the petitioners were only performing their
duties while investigating into the serious allegations of fraud and
defalcation into the company's affairs at Indore and had no intention
at all to abet the offence of suicide as the petitioners would be the last
persons to expect that the deceased would commit suicide who was
also having vital information of the fraud which was being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
investigated upon by the petitioners. Learned Sr. Counsel has also
submitted that during the course of investigation, it might be that the
employees of the Company of Indore Branch were roughly treated
but that in itself cannot be presumed to be an act of abetement. It is
also submitted that the petitioners herein had arrived at Indore only a
day prior to the incident, for the purposes of investigation only and
thus, were absolutely clueless that the deceased Mitesh Mittal would
reel under the pressure of investigation and would commit suicide.
4] Learned counsel has further submitted that a complaint under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has already been lodged by the Company to
the concerned police station regarding the defalcation which took
place in the Company running into crores of rupees which being
committed since last many years in the Indore Branch of the
Company. Thus, it is submitted that the allegations of abetment of
suicide on the present petitioners are totally misplaced and uncalled
for, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of his
submissions, Sr. Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered in the
case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another reported as (2018) 7 SCC 781.
5] The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent/State as well as the objector, and it is submitted that no
case for interference is made out as it is apparent from the statements
of the various witnesses who are the employees of the Company who
were also interrogated along with the deceased as also the wife of the
deceased, Smt. Neha Mittal who has clearly stated that the deceased
was abused and was insulted by the petitioners which led him to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
commit suicide and thus, it is not a case where it can be said with
certainty at this stage that no case of abetment of suicide is made out
as the evidence is still to be led by the prosecution and the petitioners
would have ample opportunity to cross examine the prosecution
witnesses. Counsel for the respondent/objector has also relied upon
the decision rendered by. Thus, it is submitted that the petition being
devoid of merits be dismissed.
6] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7] Before this court proceeds further to deal with the facts of the
case, it would be germane to refer to a recent decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, reported as (2022) 2 SCC 129 which takes into account
the various earlier rulings of the Supreme Court governing the field
relating to the cases involving abatement of suicide u/s.306 of IPC.
The relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"21. In Bhajan Lal, this Court laid down the principles for the
exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. Ratnavel Pandian, J. laid
down the limits on the exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC
for quashing the FIR and observed : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
"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 CrPC 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
(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) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) CrPC.
(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) CrPC.
(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 concerned Act, 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."
The judgment in Bhajan Lal has been recently relied on by this
Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet.
22. Based on the above precedent, the High Court while exercising
its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR instituted against
the second respondent-accused should have applied the following two
tests : (i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie
constitute an offence; and (ii) whether the allegations are so
improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that
there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. Before
proceeding further, it is imperative to briefly discuss the law on the
abetment of suicide to determine if a prima facie case under Section
306 IPC has been made out against the respondent-accused.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
X X X X
24. The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a
thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal
omission. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court, speaking through R.C. Lahoti, J. (as the learned
Chief Justice then was), observed : (SCC p. 629, para 20)
"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)
8] As also in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 8] the relevant paras of which read as
under:-
"55. More recently in M. Arjunan v. State, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court, speaking through R. Banumathi, J., elucidated the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the
following observations : (SCC p. 317, para 7)
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC
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 the accused
cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
56. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude
Singh v. State of Haryana, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking
through Dinesh Maheshwari, J., expounded on the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining
whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the
following terms : (SCC pp. 321-22, para 16)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
"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 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 abovereferred,
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 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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
57. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana, a two-Judge Bench
of this Court, speaking through L. Nageswara Rao, J., held as
follows : (SCC para 9)
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. In order to bring a
case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is
said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate
the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be proved and established
by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC."
58. In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State
of Punjab, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through
Hrishikesh Roy, J., held thus : (SCC pp. 206-07, para 15)
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the
offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on
record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty
mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of
the deceased."
59. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, a
two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking through U.U. Lalit, J., dealt
with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section
482 CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and
506 read with Section 34 IPC. A person serving in the office of the
Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad had committed suicide on
8-8-2017. His wife made a complaint to the police that her husband
was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy
work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work
from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and even at odd hours and on holidays. The
specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the
deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased
that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was
no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of
assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police.
The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate
and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide
under Section 306 IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month,
was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind.
Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
60. On the other hand, we must also notice the decision in
Praveen Pradhan where a two-Judge Bench of this Court, speaking
through B.S. Chauhan, J., dismissed an appeal against the rejection
of an application under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court for
quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating an offence under
Section 306 IPC. The suicide note which was left behind by the
deceased showed, as this Court observed, that "the appellant
perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, who
was compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at the workplace,
which hurt his self-respect tremendously." The Court noted that the
appellant always scolded the deceased and tried to always force the
deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed : (SCC p. 741,
para 19)
"19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the
aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged
harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a
matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a
man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing
that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be
compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who
was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent
harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure
continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon
nonfulfilment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the
appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to
work continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other
employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such
harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that,
"had there been any other person in his place, he would have
certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct
from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which
requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed accordingly."
The contents of the FIR, therefore, indicated that the deceased
had been subjected to harassment persistently and continuously and
this was coupled by words used by the accused which led to the
commission of suicide.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
61. In Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, this
Court, speaking through U.U. Lalit, J., reversed the judgment of a
Division Bench of the High Court which had quashed criminal
proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482. This
was a case where the FIR was registered pursuant to the information
received from the appellant. The FIR stated that the son and
daughter-in-law of the appellant were teachers in Zila Parishad
School. The respondent used to call the daughter-in-law of the
appellant on the phone and used to harass her. Moreover, despite the
efforts of the son of the appellant, the respondent did not desist from
doing so. This Court noted : (SCC p. 603, para 12)
"12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are
definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling
the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which
allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the
wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows
that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the
victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled
with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against
first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into
question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to
aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide. At this juncture
when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if
any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into
the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on
part of the respondent."
The above observations of the Court clearly indicated that there
was a specific allegation in the FIR bearing on the imputation that
the respondent had actively facilitated the commission of suicide by
continuously harassing the spouse of the victim and in failing to
rectify his conduct despite the efforts of the victim."
(emphasis supplied)
9] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vaijnath Kondiba
Khandke v. State of Maharashtra but the same has already been
referred to in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra).
10] Thus, it has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid dicta of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
Supreme Court, if a case u/s.306 of IPC is prima facie made out
against the petitioners and (i) whether the allegations made in the
complaint, prima facie constitute an offence; and (ii) whether the
allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at
the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the
complaint.
11] On perusal of the FIR dated 13/02/2021, it is found that the
date of incident is said to be 27/01/2022, when Mitesh committed
suicide in the wee hours of 27/01/2021. It is also mentioned in the
FIR that in the inquiry, it was found that the deceased Mitesh was
working as Purchase Manager in the company since last 5-6 years,
and as some financial irregularities were found to be committed in
the Indore office of the company, hence, on 22/01/2021, and
23/01/2021, the company head Ravi Sharma of Indore questioned the
deceased Mitesh Mittal from 10 am in the morning till 2 am in the
night and thereafter Mitesh Mittal was again grilled by Ravi Sharma
and Anand Raval of Big Basket company Bangalore, from 10 am in
the morning till 2 am in the night, and on 26/01/2021, Mitesh Mittal
was again interrogated by Ravi Sharma, Indore, Anand Raval, Big
Basket Company, Bangalore, Capt. Amrit Koijam, Big Basket
Company Ahmedabad (Gujrat), and Hardik Patel, Big Basket
Company, Ahmedabad (Gujrat) when the deceased Mitesh was
questioned till 03:13 in the night. Thereafter, the deceased went to his
house, and consumed celphone at around 4:00 am in the morning and
when he was taken to the Apple Hospital, he was declared as dead.
12] It is also mentioned in the FIR that the company had not lodged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
any report against Mitesh Mittal in any police station regarding
financial irregularity, and no notice was ever issued to Mitesh Mittal
regarding such irregularities, however, only to save their faces, a
report was indeed lodged on 01/02/2021, in the court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class as private complaint. FIR also discloses that as
per the CCTV footage, the deceased Mitesh Mittal had gone to the
company at 11:00 O'clock in the morning whereas he left the office
at 3:30 am in the night. Thus, it is alleged that the present petitioners
detained Mitesh Mittal illegally in the office from 22/01/2021 to
26/01/2021, which finally led him to consume celphos and commit
suicide.
13] Also filed along with the charge sheet is the private complaint
filed by the petitioners' Company Super Market Grossery Supplies
Pvt. Ltd. as the complainant, in which 5 persons have been named as
accused, namely; Ravindra Thakur, Neeraj Sharma, Ashok
Pandey, Rinku Gaud and Mitesh Mittal (the deceased), as also
against other unknown persons involved in the offence under Section
120-B, 403, 408, 413, 414, 420, 468, 477-A of IPC. In this
complaint, the JMFC vide its order dated 02/02/2021 has directed the
concerned police station to submit its report. The aforesaid complaint
is still pending in the court.
14] During the course of investigation, the statements of the other
employees of the company have also been recorded along with the
statement of Mrs. Neha Agrawal, the wife of the deceased Mitesh
Mittal.
15] Rajneekant Mishra, the Sales Officer of the company has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
stated that he is working in the company since last 3 years and on
21/01/2021, the Branch Head Ravi Sharma called Mitesh Mittal and
told him that there is a difference of around 20-25 Lakhs in the
accounts and to seek his explanation, Mitesh Mittal was called and
questioned by Ravi Sharma on 22/01/2021 and 23/01/2021, from the
morning till around 1:21 am in the night and as there was Sunday on
24th, Mitesh Mittal did not come to the office and at around 4:00
p.m., he was called by an office employee Ashish who went to his
house along with another person and Mitesh Mittal came to the office
at around 5-6 p.m. in the evening. On 25/01/2021 again, Mitesh
Mittal was questioned by Anand Raval, who had come from
Bangalore, from 10:00 am in the morning. This witness has also
stated that Mitesh informed him that Anand Raval was questioning
him in a bad manner and also abusing him and is not ready to listen
to him, and also pressurising him to name the persons who are also
involved with him. This witness has also stated that on 26/01/2021,
Anand Raval from Bangalore, Amrit Koijam and Hardik Patel from
Ahmedabad also interrogated the deceased Mitesh Mittal and other
employees of the company and harassed them and also abused them
till 3:00 O'clock in the night, and they also took the mobile phone of
the deceased Mitesh Mittal and told him that he has to pay a sum of
Rs.3 Crores and for which, he should bring the papers of his property
as also of his vehicle and thus, all the employees were sent back at
around 3:45 am, and thereafter, he came to know at around 5:46 am
by one Amit Garg that Mitesh Mittal has consumed poison. Thus, this
witness has stated that deceased Mitesh Mittal has committed suicide
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
only because the petitioners harassed him prior to his death.
16] The other important witness Neha Mittal, the wife of deceased
Mitesh Mittal has stated that everyday his husband used to go to the
office at around 9-10 O'clock in the morning and used to come back
at around 7:00 O'clock in the evening, however, on the day of
incident, he came back the house at around 2:00 O'clock in the night
and was not having the laptop and when she asked him about his late
arrival, he informed her about the financial irregularities which have
been found in the office and since he is the Purchase Manager of the
company, he is being interrogated by his superiors. She has also
stated that on 23/01/2021, her husband went to the office at around
10:00 am and again came back at around 2:00 O'clock in the night
on account of the enquiry in respect of the financial irregularities,
and Mitesh also informed her that petitioner Ravi Sharma is
harassing him and is asking him that he should deposit the entire
amount of defalcation otherwise he (Mitesh) would be falsely
implicated in the case. Neha Mittal also stated that on 24/01/2021
also, as there was Sunday and her husband was unwell, he did not go
to the office, however, two persons came from the office and inquired
about her husband, to which, one person informed his name to be
Ashish and the other one as Govind. They informed that they have
come from Big Basket Company and have been sent by petitioner
Ravi Sharma and when she informed them that Mitesh had gone to
the Doctor as he was feeling unwell, these persons told her that if he
has not been admitted then they would get him admitted, and also
told her that their senior Ravi Sharma has asked them to ensure that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
Mitesh must come to the office on that day and when her husband
came back from the Doctor, she informed him about the same ,and
on 25/01/2021, her husband again went to the office at around 10'O
Clock and came back at around at 1.30 to 2.00 am in the night and
was looking perturb and when she asked him about what happened in
the office, he informed that Anand Raval who had come from
Bangalore has questioned him and also harassed him by abusing him
and was not ready to listen to him. Neha Mittal has also stated that
despite there being a national holiday on 26/01/2021, her husband
was called to the office at around 10.00 am in the morning and at
around 12.56 am in the night, when she asked him as to when he
would come, he said that it would take some time and subsequently
he came back only at around 4.00 O'clock in the morning and
informed her that all the petitioners herein questioned him and
harassed him, and are pressurising him that he should admit the
defalcations and should also give in writing that he would make good
all the losses suffered by the company, for which he should bring his
property papers in the office, and thus, the deceased informed his
wife that as he is tired of the harassment meted out to him by the
petitioners, it is better for him to die and soon thereafter he consumed
around 5 tablets of celphos, and informed her about the same. He was
immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared as dead.
Thus, Neha has stated that the deceased had died only because of the
harassment meted out to her husband Mistesh Mittal by the present
petitioners.
17] Yet another employee of the Company, Govind Yadav has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
stated that on 24/01/2021, there was Sunday and he had also gone to
the office along with other employees of the company, however,
Mitesh did not come, hence, his senior Ravi (the petitioner herein)
who is also the Indore Head called Mitesh but as the phone could not
be connected, hence Ravi Asked this witness Govind to go the house
of Mitesh and ask if he is OK and if there is any help needed, then
provide the same. This witness Govind accompanied by Ashish went
to the house of Mitesh and inquired from his wife if Mitesh is OK, to
which, she replied that since he is indisposed and has gone to consult
the Doctor, to which, this witness informed her that if any help
needed by them, she should inform them and thereafter they went
away. This witness has also stated that on 26/01/2021, their senior
Ravi informed all the employees of the office that some officers from
outside had come to inquire, hence, he (Govind), along with other
employees of the Company viz., Bashir Ahmed Khan, Arvind
Mandloi, Shweta Kannojiya, Mitesh (deceased) Harshwardhan
Holkar, Rajnikant Mishra, Rinku Gaur, Neeraj Sharma, Ashok
Pandey, Jayprakash Panwar were questioned separately by petitioners
Ravi, Amrit Koinjam, Hardik Patel and Anand Rawal in different
rooms, and out of which, Shweta and Arvind left at around 12:30 in
the night whereas, all the other employees left at around 3:45,
although Mitesh was inside the room only and he does not know as
to at what time, Mitesh left the office.
18] Similarly, Harshwardhan Holkar, another employee of the
Company has also stated that an inquiry was going on regarding the
financial irregularities committed in the company and Mitesh and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
other employees of the company were also being questioned. He has
also stated that the company had given Mitesh Mittal a laptop to
work. He has also stated that from 22/01/2021 Ravi Sharma
questioned Mitesh Mittal, however, on 25/01/2021, Anand Rawal
came from Bangalore and on the same day, he also questioned
Mitesh Mittal, however, on 26/01/2021, despite there being a holiday
but from Ahmedabad, Hardik Patel and Captain Amirt Koinjam had
come to Indore and that is why all the employees of the company
were also called and in the evening when he asked Ravi(the
petitioner) that if he can go, to which, Ravi told him that he can stay
late at-least for one day, on that day Mitesh Mittal and other
employees of the company were also questioned by the accused
persons/petitioners till 3:40 am in the night and onn 27/01/2021, he
came to know that Mitesh Mittal has committed suicide.
19] Similarly, Jayprakash Panwar, another employee of the
company has also stated that the accused persons had questioned
many employees of the company and they were calling one person at
a time in a separate room.
20] Similar statement has been given by Rinku Gaur, the Assistant
Purchase Manager of the company who has stated that Mitesh Mittal
was working as the Purchase Manger in the company who used to
give orders to various vendors and used to see the quality of the
material. He has also stated that he came to know that there were
some financial irregularities committed in the company and Mitesh is
being questioned about it. He has also stated that on 22 and
23/01/2021, Mitesh was questioned from the morning till late night
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
by their head Ravi in his cabin and on 25/01/2021, Anand Rawal
from Bangalore also questioned from Mitesh, whereas on
26/01/2021, Hardik Patel and Captain Amrit Koinjam from
Ahmedabad also came to Indore and they also questioned Mitesh
from morning till night. He has also asserted that the other employees
of the company were also questioned and his mobile was also taken
by his seniors and mobile of one Pandey was also taken by them and
they were also abused by the petitioners on the allegations that they
are taking commission in the purchase of the material for the
Company and do not think anything of the company and he was also
scolded and was asked to leave the room and thereafter Mitesh was
again called in the room. Subsequently Mitesh also told him that he
was also abused by the accused persons who alleged that he(Mitesh)
is distributing the commission.
21] Similar statements have also been given by Neeraj Sharma,
Ashok Kumar Pandey of the company.
22] Similar statements have also been given by the other witnesses
who are the family members of the deceased Mitesh and who heard
the story from Neha Mittal.
23] From the aforesaid facts, the following chronology can be
made out as a prelude to the commission of suicide by the deceased
Mitesh Mittal:-
Date Event
21/01/2021 The Head of the company Ravi Sharma called Mitesh Mittal
on his phone and informed him about the discrepancy in the
accounts.
22/01/2021 & Ravi Sharma questioned Mitesh Mittal from morning to till
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
23/01/2021 late night.
24/01/2021 As per his wife, the deceased was unwell hence, he did not
go to the office, though he was called from the office by
sending two employees.
25/01/2021 Mitesh Mittal and other employees of the Company were
again grilled from 10:00 am till night by petitioner Anand
Raval.
26/01/2021 Mitesh Mittal and other employees of the Company were
again questioned and allegedly harassed by Anand Raval of
Bangalore, Amrit Koijam and Hardik Patel of Ahmedabad
who had come that day only, till around 3.30 am.
27/01/2021 The deceased reached his house at around 4 a.m. in the early
morning of 27.01.2021 and consumed celphos tablets in the
early morning..
24] Thus, the deceased was allegedly harassed by the
petitioners/accused persons for around 4 days, from 22/01/2021 to
26/01/2021, except 24/01/2021, when he was unwell and did not go
to the office as per the statement of his wife although other witnesses
have stated that he did come to the office in the evening.
Nonetheless, the entire episode took taken place within five days'
time, between 22/01/2021 to 26/01/2021. It is also found that it is
nobody's case that prior to 22.01.2021, the deceased was harassed by
the petitioners in any manner, or that the deceased was in any way
physically assaulted by the petitioners or was subjected to any bodily
injury during the period in question, what is alleged is that he was
questioned rigorously by the petitioners for during this period. It is
also found that the petitioners Anand Raval, Amrit Koijam and
Hardik Patel are not the residents of Indore and had come to Indore
just one/two days prior to the incident to investigate the matter on
behalf of the company. Under these facts and circumstances, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
difficult to perceive that a case under Section 306 of IPC i.e.
abetment of committing suicide is made out against the petitioners.
For this purpose, it would be relevant to refer to Section 107 of IPC
which refers to abetment of a thing, and the same 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. "
(emphasis supplied)
25] So far as Section 306 i.e. abetment of suicide is concerned, the
same 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."
26] A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections clearly reveals that
to constitute an offence of abetment, there must be an intention on
the part of that person to instigate any person to do that thing which
is an offence, as in the present case, it is suicide. It is trite that in
order to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide, it is not
necessary that there should be specific words spoken by the accused
instigating the deceased to commit suicide, but his treatment of the
deceased or his behaviour towards the deceased should be such so as
to give a clear indication of his intentions which would constitute an
offence of abetment of suicide. On perusal of the charge sheet, this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
Court finds that there are no such intentions attributed or attributable
to the present petitioners that they ever intended that the deceased
should commit suicide because of the alleged financial irregularities
committed by him in the company. It might be true that the deceased
felt mentally pressurized by the petitioners during the course of his
interrogation about the financial irregularities which took place in
the company, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, that
itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioners are liable for the
offence of abetment of suicide, especially, when there is no such
allegations against the petitioners that the deceased was harassed by
them persistently and continuously for a long period of time.
27] The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra (supra) is
relevant here, as it was also a case in which it was alleged by the wife
of the deceased that he was harassed by the accused persons which
led to his suicide. The relevant paras in the case of Vaijnath Kondiba
Khandke (supra) are as hereunder:-
"2. One Kishor Parashar serving in the office of the Deputy Director of
Education Aurangabad, committed suicide on 08.08.2017 in his house. His
wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from
mental torture as his higher officers were getting heavy work done from her
husband which required him to work from 10.00 am to 10.00 pm; that her
husband would be called at odd hours and even on holidays to get the work
done; that officer named Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke (the appellant) had
stopped his salary for one month and was threatening her husband that his
increment would be stopped; that one of the co-worker named Ghorpade
Madam used to get her work done from her husband; that because of the
pressure of work her husband used to remain silent and that these two
persons were responsible for the suicide committed by her husband.
Pursuant to the aforesaid reporting, FIR No.268 of 2017 dated 09.08.2017
was registered against the appellant and one Vidya Ghorpade under Sections
306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station MIDC, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
X X X X
5. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another the deceased was
a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised against
performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer (2010)
8 SCC 628 who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to
suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions.
The deceased thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note
stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts,
this Court held that 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. The prayer for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by
this Court and the proceedings were quashed.
6. At the same time the facts in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and
another2 show that a junior officer was allegedly compelled by the superior
to indulge in several wrongful practices at the work place; the junior officer
was not comfortable in complying with such orders, as a result of which the
junior officer was harassed and insulted on regular intervals and disgraced
in front of the staff of the entire factory and rebuked with comments such as
"had there been any other person in his place he would have died by
hanging himself." The junior officer committed suicide leaving behind a
note detailing all the incidents and (2012) 9 SCC 734 asserting against his
superior. In these circumstances prayer for quashing was rejected by this
Court.
7. In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the
material on record. There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and
the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in
her reporting to the police. It is true that if a situation is created
deliberately so as to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room
for attracting Section 306 IPC. However, the facts on record in the present
case are completely inadequate and insufficient. 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.
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
28] This court also finds that along with the deceased Mitesh, other
persons viz., Ravindra Thakur, Neeraj Sharma, Ashok Pandey and
Rinku Gaud were also interrogated by the petitioners but it was only
the deceased who committed the suicide. It may be that the deceased
Mitesh was more sensitive than the others or it might be that he was
apprehensive of the outcome of the enquiry which made him to resort
to such extreme measure to commit suicide, as otherwise, the other
persons who were identically placed and were subjected to more or
less similar treatment by the petitioners, were unaffected by such
treatment. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when no
suicide note is left by the deceased and there are only assertions
made by his wife, by no stretch of imagination, can it be insinuated
that the petitioners Ravi Sharma of Indore office, Anand Raval of
Banglore, Amrit Koijam and Hardik Patel of Ahamdabad, who had
come to Indore just a couple of days prior to the incident, for
inquiring about the financial irregularity committed in the Indore
office of the Company, had any intention of instigating the deceased
Mitesh to commit suicide, and as has been rightly argued by shri
Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that they
would never want the deceased to commit suicide as they were
already investigating the matter and their purpose to investigate the
same was only to fix the responsibility. Thus, the mens rea which is
necessary to convict the petitioners for an offence of abatement of
suicide is clearly missing from the documents filed along with the
chargesheet.
29] In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
that even taking the contents of the charge sheet filed against the
petitioners to be true; the same do not constitute an offence u/s.306 of
IPC and the petitioners' trial under the same would only amount to
misuse of the process of the court.
30] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR as also the
charge sheet filed in connection with Crime No.149/2021 at Police
Station Bhawarkuan, District Indore (M.P.) under Sections 306, 34 of
IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in ST
No.465/2022, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
krjoshi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 13-06-2023
17:34:34
