Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmaljit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2023
NIRMALJIT SINGH AND ORS
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab
Mr. Saurav Kanojia, Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') for quashing of FIR No.16 dated
02.03.2014, Annexure P-1 under Sections 306, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Maloud, District Khanna and all
the subsequent proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that from the contents
of FIR itself, as well as from the bare reading of alleged suicide note dated
01.03.2014, Annexure P-5, there is a mere mention of the names of the petitioners
that they had disturbed /irritated the deceased without there being any specific role
attributed or instances of disturbing or irritating. There is no complaint in that
regard, also stated to have been submitted by the petitioners to either the school
1 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 2-
authority or the police. Therefore, it does not constitute abetment under Section
107 IPC and consequently, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. Still
further, there was a compromise also arrived at between the parties in the present
case on 25.11.2021, Annexure P-3, regarding which even an affidavit of even date
of the complainant, who is the son of the deceased, was sworn in, and Notarized
on 27.11.2021, Annexure P-4. The statements of the complainant party have
already been recorded on 07.02.2022, affirming the compromise in pursuance to
the order dated 21.01.2022, passed by this Court. To bolster his submissions,
reliance was placed on the judgments passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in
the cases of Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659, Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Madan Mohan Singh vs.
State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, State of Kerala and others
vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, (2015) 9 SCC 639, and Geo Varghese vs.
The State of Rajasthan and another, 2021 SCC OnLine Sc 873.
The learned State counsel submits that the investigation was duly
conducted in the present case and the final report under Section 173 CrPC was
presented only against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and accused Gurmail Singh, who
expired during pendency of the trial, whereas, petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 were found
innocent and put in column No.2. Charges were framed on 10.03.2015, however,
only two witnesses out of a total of sixteen have been examined so far.
Learned counsel for the complainant affirms the factum of
compromise and the statement recorded before the trial Court by the complainant
that the same has been effected voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion.
The complainant stands by the compromise and has no objection to the quashing
of the FIR registered by him.
2 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 3-
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
For the purpose of adjudicating the case, it is worthwhile to, at first
make a reference to the provisions, which read thus:
Section 306 of the IPC:
"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."
A bare reading of the provision, makes it amply clear that to
constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i)
that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the
accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is
an "abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment"
have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as
follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a
thing, who -
First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing."
A conjoint reading of the aforesaid would show that a person can be
said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that
3 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 4-
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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful
concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within
the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct
involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of
suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
The word "instigate" which figures in the first clause of Section 107,
is not defined in the IPC. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, observed that, "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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to
be instigation."
The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates
someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford
4 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 5-
English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he
reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly,
"urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to
make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by
pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to
"goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage
the doing of an act by the latter.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Netai Dutta vs.
State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659, held as under:-
"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note
that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in
any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much
dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work place. But,
it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in
1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha Road,
Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and
that the suicide took place on 16.2.2001. It cannot be said that
the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab
Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand
only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime.
The parameters of the "abetment" have been stated in Section
107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person
abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that
thing; or 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, or the
person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal
omission. The explanation to Section 107 says that any willful
misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact
which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the
contours of "abetment".
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or
incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have
committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the
act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played
any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately
5 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 6-
instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag."
In view of the aforesaid, to ascertain whether any one of the
ingredients of Section 107 IPC would be attracted in the present case, it is
necessary to consider in sum and substance the allegations levelled against the
petitioners as emerge from the FIR and suicide note.
FIR and the suicide read thus:
"Statement of Paramvir Singh son of Ranjit Singhcaste
Ramdassia Sikhresident of JhamatPolice Station
MaloudDistrict Ludhianaaged about 27 years99151-10006It is
stated that I am the resident of above-mentioned address and is
working as an architect in Pahir. the case of the prosecution as
per the FIR is that on 01.03.2014, the father of the complainant
left home at 8 a.m. for his duty and went to school on his
scooter bearing No.PCH7653, make LML Vespa. He used to
come home every day around 4 o'clock. However, on that date,
the exams of 10+2 were starting in the school and the exam
was scheduled from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. When the father of the
complainant did not return till 5.30-6 p.m., the complainant
alongwith his neighbour, Rajdeep Singh came towards Jagera
to search for his father and when they reached at Verka Milk
Plant's booth near Jagera bridge, his father's scooter was parked
near Verka Booth. They searched for the father of the
complainant in the surrounding but did not get any clue. As per
the complainant he was told by his father that in relation to his
father's extension, school's clerk Parminder Kaur and her
husband in connivance with Gurmail Singh, who is the
Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Kalalh
wanted to get his father transferred and Gurmail Singh wanted
to come in as Principal in Latala School. To accomplish that
they were threatening and harassing him on the phone. As a
result of which under stress and disturbance his father had
committed suicide. There was no clue about the dead body of
complainant's father. Thereafter, after leaving Rajdeep to keep
surveillance of the scooter, he went to the Police Station to give
information."
Suicide note:-
"Clerk Parminder Kaur, her husband Happy, Sattu, Chairman
6 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 7-
Gurmukh, Daljeet Lala Chairman, Pawan Kumar Math's
master, have disturbed/irritated me. I am committing suicide on
account of them. Let they be strictly punished by justice. Along
with them MLA Dakha, Harjinder Singh is also there."
The aforesaid goes to show that the father of the complainant (since
deceased, who was working as Principal, Senior Secondary School, Latala, Tehsil
Pakhowal, District Ludhiana) had allegedly shared with him that petitioner No.2
and her husband-petitioner No.1 in connivance with Sh. Gurmail Singh, Principal
of Government Senior School, Kalakh wanted to get him transferred so that in his
place the aforesaid Gurmail Singh becomes the Principal of the school at Latala,
for which reason they were allegedly threatening and harassing him over the
phone. According to the complainant, it is due to the stress and disturbance, that
his father had committed suicide. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 were summoned on an
application filed under Section 319 CrPC vide order dated 25.04.2006. Petitioner
No.2 was working as a clerk in the said school, whose husband is petitioner No.1
and petitioner No.3 was working as a Maths Teacher. On a pointed query raised
by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the school
wherein the father of the petitioner was working and the Senior Secondary School,
Kalakh, where Sh. Gurmail Singh was working as a Principal, who was planning
to replace the deceased, are located within the same district and at a distance of 5.6
kms.
As per the FIR, there was no information with regard to the body of
the deceased, which apparently was recovered from the river on 03.04.2014, after
the lodging of FIR on 02.03.2014. The cause of death as per the post mortem
report was 'asphyxia' due to drowning.
The alleged suicide note was recovered from a notebook in the
7 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 8-
'dikki' of the scooter, containing names of the petitioners along with that of one
MLA of Dakha. As is apparent therefrom, the deceased had alleged being
disturbed/irritated by the persons mentioned therein, with no further specifics, the
position remained the same even in the statement of the complainant before the
trial Court.
In the case of State of West Bangal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.,
(1994) 1 SCC 73, Hon'ble The Supreme Court observed that, "We may add here
that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances
of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life
by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance
discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the
offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Kumar
(supra), wherein the appeal was partly allowed maintaining the conviction under
Section 498A IPC, acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC, in
spite of the charge and conviction being on the basis of dying declaration recorded
by an Executive Magistrate, wherein she had stated that previously there had been
quarrel between the deceased and the husband and on the day of occurrence she
had a quarrel with him, who told her that she can go wherever she wanted to go,
whereafter she poured kerosen on herself and set fire, by holding thus:-
8 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 9-
"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."
In a case of a suicide note making allegations against the officers of
the department, quite similar to the facts of the present case, Hon'ble The Supreme
Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC
628, concluded that, "We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there
being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the
so-called suicide note" by observing that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part
of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as
a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to
instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular
offence under Section 306 IPC. The suicide note and para as relevant read thus:-
"7. It is then suggested in the followings words:
"I am going to commit suicide due to his
functioning style. Alone M.M. Singh, D.E.T.
Microwave Project is responsible for my death. I
pray humbly to the officers of the department that
you should not cooperate as human being to defend
M.M. Singh. M.M. Singh has acted in breach of
discipline disregarding the norms of discipline. I
humbly request the Enquiry Officer that my wife
and son may not be harassed. My life has been
ruined by M.M. Singh."
9 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 10-
xxxxx
10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in
this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly
be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306,
IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-
called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment
to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an
allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some
other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused
had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring
about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic
examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we
find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the
nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some
mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he
himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide
note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that
the driver under him should commit suicide or should
end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is
accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver
or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the
car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it
does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the
driver should commit suicide because of this.
In State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishan Nair and others,
(2015) 9 SCC 639, a case wherein the deceased who committed suicide was
working as Chief Investigating Officer and was entrusted with the investigation
assisted by a team of officers (that included respondent Nos.1 and 2), in Sampath
murder case wherein the allegations were that he was beaten to death by the
investigating agency, while he was in custody. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of
India concluded that, "We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we
have no hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different, and
the Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of the tenor
and nature of the suicide note." It was observed that the suicide note really does
10 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 11-
not state about any continuous conduct of harassment. The said suicide note as
also the paras relevant hereto read thus:
"Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are responsible for my
this situation. Nobody else has any role in this. They who
compelled me to do everything and cheated me and put me in
deep trouble. Advocate Seekumar also has some role. CJM Sri
Vijayan also put pressure on me."
"12. As we find from the narration of facts and the material
brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note
which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper
appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before.
On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there
has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except
saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and
cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else.
The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that
such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really
vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him
the head of the investigating team and the High Court had
reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to
move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel
cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the
lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief
Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him.
He has also made the allegation against the Advocate."
In Geo Varghese vs. The State of Rajasthan and another, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 873, a student committed suicide after panning down a suicide
note specifically taking the name of the appellant, who was his teacher and the
facts being that the deceased were harassed by him from 19.04.2018 till
24.04.2018 and ultimately on the complaint of the appellant-teacher, the deceased
was called by the principal on 25.04.2018 for bunking classes, and his parents
were asked to come on 26.04.2018, however, on the intervening night of
25.04.2018-26.04.2018, the deceased committed suicide and it was contended that
there was approximate nexus in the harassment and suicide, thus a prima facie
11 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 12-
case for alleged cognizance was made out and the High Court had rightly refused
to quash the FIR. Hon'ble The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was
not justifed in dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC as, "in the
absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature, not imaginary or
inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face
the trial." It took into consideration the suicide note consisting of three pages,
which along with the paras relevant in that regard, read thus:-
"01st page - 'MY ALL THINGS GOES TO MY DEAR BRO
KAIRN EVEN MY LOVE BYE BUDDY & SORRY' 02nd
page - 'NEEDED JUSTICE' 03rd page - 'THANKS GEO
(PTI) OF MY SCHOOL'"
"33. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a
teacher and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty
without their being any circumstances to even remotely
indicate that there was any intention on his part to abet the
commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea
can be attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is
conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in the FIR.
In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the
allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under Section
306 IPC do not exist.
34. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court
while mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482
CrPC on the ground that FIR discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence.
40. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute
examination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is
rhetoric document, penned down by an immature mind. A
reading of the same also suggests the hyper- sensitive
temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an
extra- ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the accused,
who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a
similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.
41. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie,
in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out any
such circumstances showing any such act or intention that he
12 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 13-
intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be
absurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to
place the deceased in such circumstances that there was no
option available to him except to commit suicide."
The Bombay High Court in the case of Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao
vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl) No.332 of 2016, decided
on 05.08.2016, where four Judicial Officers of the Maharashtra State Judiciary
including the Principal District Judge of the said district had sought quashing of
the FIR under Section 306, registered against them on the allegations levelled by
another Judicial Officer, who allegedly committed suicide leaving behind a suicide
note specifically naming them and holding them responsible for his death on
account of harassment meted to him. The deceased was disturbed on account of he
being transferred to Darwha and not being permitted to do up and down from
there. The deceased, like in the present case, had never made any complaint with
regard to any of the applicants. It was observed that, "it cannot also be a case of
harassment inasmuch as the deceased was the junior most Judicial Officer in the
cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division and transferring him out of the District
headquarters to another place in the same district, cannot be said to be an act by
the applicant no.1 causing harassment to the deceased." Further that, "even taking
the allegations to be true at its face value, the question would be as to whether is it
sufficient to book the persons like applicants for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code." It was a case wherein investigation was
almost complete and the High Court found that the continuation of criminal
proceedings would result in an abuse of process of law, and as such the application
filed under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.
The suicide note in the said case reads thus:-
13 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 14-
"Shri D.R.Shirsao, the District Judge, Yavatmal, Shri S.M.
Agarkar, Member, Legal Services Authority, Shri D.N.
Khadse, Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal, Shri R.P.
Deshpande, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal and H.L.
Manwar, 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal are
responsible for my death as they subjected me to harassment.".
Sd/- .....
A.D. Jawalkar
Civil Judge"
Fortiori, it is the solemn duty of the Court to separate grain from the
chaff and under the inherent powers, this Court is to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to
do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, dealt with the aspect of abetment
and opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from
the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore,
it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There has to be a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. The intention of
the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by Hon'ble The Supreme Court is
clear that in order to hold a person liable under Section 306 IPC, there has to be
mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
14 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 15-
Moving back to the facts of the case in hand, it containing the
allegations of transfer of the deceased, who was working as Principal from one
school to the other at a distance of short distance of 5.6 kms; the allegations being
against the petitioners who included a Clerk, a Maths teacher and Chairman of
disturbing and irritating the deceased; not a case set up that transfer would entail
any other adverse consequences upon his service; a perusal of the suicide note,
reveals the allegations levelled to be vague; no specific instances narrated that
could be viewed as material for attracting the ingredients of instigation,
provocation, goading, inciting, urging under Section 107 IPC, for the offence to
come within the contours of 'abetment', that essential to bring home the offence
under Section 306 IPC, which could not even be substantiated by the complainant
in his statement before the trial Court. The said act of the disturbing/irritating does
not reflect requisite mens rea on the assumption that the deceased, a highly
educated person would be pressurized and without weighing the pros and cons,
ended his life. The offence is also not attracted, there being no positive action on
the part of the petitioners alleged proximate to the time of occurrence which may
have led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, it cannot be said that
the petitioners had in any manner whatsoever aided or by act of omission or
commission driven the deceased to the point of no return, leaving him with no
option. This Court, basis the aforesaid suicide note and the peculiarity of facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, in absence of specifics and definite
material which is not inferential or presumptive arrive at a conclusion that the
proceedings if allowed to continue would end in conviction of the petitioners for
the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Further still, there was also a compromise
arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which, the petitioners had filed the
15 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 16-
petition for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on
basis of compromise, whereafter, on a direction passed by this Court on
31.01.2022, the statements of the complainant and the accused-petitioners were
recorded before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. As per his report, the
complainant-Paramvir Singh-respondent No.2, affirmed it, to have arrived at
voluntarily, without any kind of coercion or pressure and had given no objection if
the proceedings are quashed by this Court against the accused persons. Thereafter,
the amended petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR on merits.
In the case of Shivaji Shitole and others vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2013(8) RCR (Crl.) 415, Bombay High Court quashed the criminal
proceedings for offence under Section 306/34 IPC, wherein the deceased was
threatened with removal from the job and deliberately transferred from Pune to
Haryana, by observing that even assuming that the deceased was being treated
unfairly by the petitioners, no intention that he should commit suicide can be
attributed to any of the petitioners as they cannot be attributed the requisite mens
rea to hold them guilty as abettors.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in a case wherein the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant
during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die', held that
mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even
prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The Court of
Sessions was found to be in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. [See
Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438].
16 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 17-
In the case of wherein the appellant aggrieved by an order whereby
he had been charge- sheeted for an offence under Section 306 IPC, filed a petition
under Section 482 of the Code, deceased committed suicide by hanging and died
of asphyxia, leaving behind a suicide note specifically naming the appellant and
others, Hon'ble The Supreme Court, quashed the charge sheet by observing that,
the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July,
1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it
cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel
that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 and held that, "Viewed from the aforesaid
circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of
'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306
IPC." [See Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2002) 5 SCC 371].
The suicide note in the said case reads thus:
"SUICIDE NOTE Danik Bhaskar 581 South Civil Lines
Jabalpur.
Agent Name Sengar New Agency Place Goshalpur No. of
copies 409 Date Name of the person who prepared label
Gosalpur Sengar has threatned to report under Dowery demand
and threatned to involve family members due to this I am
writing in my full senses that Sanjay Sangar is responsible for
my death. Sanjay Sangar also Mukraj commander Loota Tha
Sanjay ki. Sengar New Agency Gosalpur I was threatened
therefore I am dying Sangar Gosalpur My name Chander
Bhushan Singh Goutam Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam
Babloo Goutam In my senses Sengar responsible for my death.
My moti Darling my moti. You look after my Chukho. My
darling Moti Neelam Sengar @ Chander Bhushan Singh
Goutam Gandhigram Budghagar.
17 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 18-
Sengar is responsible for my death Sanjay Sengar is
responsible for my death Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my
death Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam Gandhigram
Budhagar."
The test to be applied by a Court for deciding whether it is expedient
and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue, is by taking into
consideration any special features which appear in a particular case that the
uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence and in the opinion of
the Court chances of conviction are weak and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing the criminal prosecution to be continued, the Court can quash
the proceedings, were the observations of Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in
the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao
Angre, 1988 (1) RCR 565.
In Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2017) 13 SCC 369, it was held thus:
"23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid
down several principles which govern the exercise of
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A
three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. L.
Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the
following has been stated:
'7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
18 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 19-
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be
an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of
the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose
which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the
very nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has
got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and
its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and
contours of that salient jurisdiction."
The exposition of law for exercise of the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC is too well settled and to the extent possible, Hon'ble The
Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335,
wherein by way of illustration, as many as seven categories of cases were
formulated, to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, yet it was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and
inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases where such power could 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
19 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 20-
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 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
20 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
CRM-M-50641-2021 (O&M) - 21-
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
On an evaluation having been made above by applying the law as
explicated/enunciated to the peculiar facts of the case, this Court finds that the
allegations set out in the FIR do not constitute the offence for which cognizance
has been taken and it evidently being a case of that nature, where the petitioners
should not be compelled to undergo the rigmarole and ordeal of trial, quashing
the proceedings would serve the salutary purpose of Section 482 CrPC, so as to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
As a sequel to the above, the present petition is allowed, FIR No.16
dated 02.03.2014 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
10.04.2023
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048594
21 of 21
