Madras High Court

Selvi Julious vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2021

                                                                                   Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 06.08.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.6328 of 2018
                                                            and
                                              Crl.MP.Nos.3205 & 3206 of 2018

                1. Selvi Julious

                2. A.J.Gunavathy                                                  ... Petitioners
                                                             Vs.

                1. The Inspector of Police,
                Police Station,
                Thiruvalam
                Vellore, Vellore District.
                Crime No.516 of 2016

                2. B.Balu
                (2nd respondent is impleaded vide order dated 18.07.2018
                in Crl.MP.No.9292 of 2018 in Cl.OP.No.6328 of 2018)
                                                                                      ... Respondents

                Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call
                for the records in PRC.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
                Magistrate, Katpadi and quash the final report dated 08.09.2017.


                                    For Petitioners         : Mr.Karthik, Senior Counsel
                                                             For Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co.

                                    For Respondents         : Mr.C.E.Pratap         R1
                                                              For Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/                              Mr.Rajagopal          R2


                1
                                                                                 Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in PRC.No.14 of

2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The victim is a final year student of Shieffelin Institute of Health

Research and Leprosy Centre, Karigiri. On 02.12.2015, A-1 at the instance of

A-2 had called upon the victim and in the presence of the other students, had

used unparliamentary words, castigated and abused the victim for her acts of

ragging and other unnatural behaviour, which led the victim to consume acid

that was kept in the restroom in the cabin of A-1. On hearing the cry of the

victim and coming to know of the act of the victim, the victim was immediately

rushed to the hospital and her parents were also informed. Inspite of the

medical treatment given to the victim, she succumbed to her act and on the basis

of the complaint given by the father of the victim, the criminal machinery was

set in motion by registering a case against the petitioners in Crime No.516/2016

and after investigation, final report in PRC No.14/2017 was filed before the

Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi for the offence u/s 306 IPC. Aggrieved against the

same, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

petitioner is the Principal of the above said Nursing School and the second

petitioner is a Leprosy cured patient and hostel warden in the same Institution.

The petitioners have acted only considering the welfare of the students and it

was not the intention of the accused to drive the victim to commit suicide. The

ordinary chiding in a parental way was taken very seriously by the victim and

being a young woman, she has taken the extreme step to consume acid. The

petitioners had no intention in abetting the victim to commit suicide and also

did not utter any word which spurned the victim to take extreme step.

4.The father of the victim girl was impleaded as second respondent in this

case vide order dated 18.07.2018 in Crl.MP.No.9292 of 2018. The learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the victim has left a

written suicide note. Subsequently, she mentioned the names of the accused and

the circumstances which forced her to consume the cleaning acid found in the

toilet. At that time, when the victim wrote the suicide note, she was in a sound

state of mind and the suicide note was written without outside coercion or

intervention. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it is a clear case of

abetment and, therefore, the relief sought for in the petition cannot be granted.

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent as well as the

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available

on record.

6. The facts in the present case relating to A-1 calling the victim and

scolding her in the presence of other students and also A-2 is not in dispute.

However, it is the admitted case of the prosecution, as vouched by the

petitioners that for certain unnatural acts and also for not adhering to the rules

of the institute, A-1 had used harsh words on the victim. However, it is the case

of the petitioners that the intimacy of the victim with one of her friends, who

was in turn intimate with the other girl, was ot to the liking of the victim, whcih

resulted in certain disputes between the three persons, which came to the

knowledge of the second petitioner, which was in turn communicated to the first

petitioner, who had called upon the victim and the other persons and had

advised them in the capacity of the Principal. The said act of the Principal (A1)

and Warden (A2) had been the driving force for the victim to commit suicide

which is termed to be instigation within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.

7. Could the act of A-1, being the Principal of the Institute could be

termed to be instigation on the part of A-1 to make the victim commit suicide is

the moot question that falls before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

8. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed into

service the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sanju @ Sanjay

Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002 (5) SCC 371), wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has dealt on the meaning of 'instigation' as found in Section 306

IPC and it is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the order for better

clarity :-

''Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ''to go and die'' that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ''instigation''. The word ''instigate'' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic of inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on, the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea''.

9. The contention was also drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court reported in 2011 3 SCC 626 in the case of M.Arjunan Vs. State Rep. by

its Inspector of Police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly explained the

terms as to what would constitute the abetment to commit suicide. The said

paragraph is extracted below:

''7.The essential ingredients of the offence under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Section 306 of IPC are (i) the abetment;(ii) the

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

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 of IPC.''

10. From the above decisions, it is clearly evident that for instigation to

be considered as abetment, there should be mens rea and in the absence of any

mens rea utterances of common nature against a person, leading the said person

to commit the extreme act of suicide cannot be said to be instigation attracting

the penal provision of Section 306 IPC.

11. In the case on hand, A-1 and A-2 had no axe to grind against the

victim, but for certain acts of the victim, which, A-1 as the Principal of the

Institute had condemned the victim, though may be in the presence of other

students. It is the case of the petitioners that equally the other students were

also responsible for certain acts for which the said students were also

reprimanded. However, the victim alone had taken the extreme step of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

committing suicide. A-1, being the Principal of the Institute, finding fault with

the victim for certain acts committed by the victim, cannot be labelled as

instigation on the part of A-1 to lead the victim to commit suicide. Further, A-2,

being the warden of the Hostel had brought to the notice of A-1 the act of the

victim and the other students, which is her duty as a Warden of the hostel and

the said act of A-2 cannot also be labelled as instigation for the victim to

commit suicide. A careful scrutiny of the acts of A-1 and A-2, the petitioners

herein, with regard to their utterances to the victim, could in no way be termed

to attract the ingredient of instigation or abetment falling within Section 306

IPC.

12. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan

Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010 (1) SCC (Crl.) 750), has also been

taken in aid by the learned counsel for the petitioner to drive home the point

that the hyper-sensitivity of the victim had resulted in her committing the

extreme act and her hyper-sensitivity cannot be fastened against the petitioners

to implicate them in the offence. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of

the decision, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with hyper-

sensitivity on the part of the victim, is quoted hereunder for reference :-

''....a deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day to day life. Human sensitivity of each

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation''.

13. In the case on hand, it is evident from the materials placed before the

court that the petitioners had merely acted in their position as Principal and

Warden of the Institute and had dealt with the victim and had reprimanded her

for certain acts committed by her. It is the normal manner in which the

Principal and Warden of an educational institution are likely to deal with their

students and if the said act of the petitioners could be taken to be instigation for

attracting the provisions of Section 306 IPC, then there would be no discipline

inculcated amongst the future generation. Mere scolding of a student for certain

acts cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. May be, the victim

had left a suicide note, but that suicide note cannot be basis to fasten the offence

of abetment on the petitioners when even according to the prosecution, the

petitioners had performed their job as Principal and Warden. The hyper-

sensitive act of the victim cannot be the basis to launch prosecution against the

petitioners and if such a prosecution is made to survive, then it would only lead

to indiscipline amongst the future generations, which would have a detrimental

effect not only on the children of future generation, but would also be

detrimental to the nation as a whole. There should be evidence capable of

suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the victim to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

commit suicide, which has not been established in the present case and,

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

therefore, in the absence of satisfying the necessary ingredients, the petitioners

cannot be allowed to undergo the rigor of trial.

14. In State of Haryana – Vs – Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the circumstances and the situations

in which the inherent power u/s 482 should be invoked for quashment and for

better appreciation, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :-

“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given 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 guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

F.I.R. 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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. Itself.”

15. In yet another case in R.P.Kapur – Vs – State of Punjab (AIR 1960

SC 866), the parameters within which the exercise of inherent powers vested by

Section 561-A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

(corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) can be invoked had been laid down in

the following terms:-

“(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of juscite;

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g., want of sanction;

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ alleged; and

Crl. O.P. No.6328 of 2018

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

16. The postulates framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's

case and R.P.Kapur's case (supra) stand squarely attracted and this Court has,

therefore, no hesitation to exercise its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final

report.

17. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed

and the final report filed against the accused in PRC No.14 of 2017 on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi is quashed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is also closed.

06.08.2021

rli

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

Index :Yes/No