Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harvidner Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14423-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14345-2024
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CRM-M-14423-2024
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Harvinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
2) CRM-M-14345-2024
Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhvir Singh Kharaud ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr.Prabhjot Singh Waraich, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Dhanveer Singh, Advocate
for respondents no. 2-complianant
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This common order shall dispose of both the above mentioned
petitions as they arise from identical factual matrix. However, for the sake of
brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-14423-2024.
2. The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR no. 0001 dated 02.01.2024 registered
under Section 306, 377, 34 of the IPC (Section 323 added later on) at Police
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14423-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14345-2024
Station Bhadson, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
3. Briefly, the facts are that the on 01.01.2024, son of respondent
no.2-complainant namely Dishal was found hanging by a rope. The brother of
respondent no. 2 namely Aslam Khan saw a video on the mobile phone of the
deceased in which he had stated that one 'Ladi' used to call the deceased at his
home and motor and sexually assault him, which can be corroborated with the
chats available on his mobile phone. He has also stated that Ladi had used him
and his father had slapped him, which pushed him to die by suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner(s) do not know the family of the deceased personally and have no
links of any sort with the deceased. The alleged act does not attribute any overt
act to the petitioner(s) to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. He
further submits that petitioner-Sukhvir Singh does not go by the name 'Ladi'
and has never used the same for himself. He further contends that Section 377
of the IPC has been decriminalised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018 AIR SC 4321. Learned counsel submits
that the FIR (supra) has been lodged with the intention to extort money from
the petitioner(s) as they are from a well to do family. He further places reliance
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu v. The State Rep
by the Inspector of Police and another SLP(Crl.) Diary No. 39981 of 2022
decided on 30.01.2024, M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Md.
Sharaful Haque 2004(4)R.C.R.(Criminal) 937, V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab
and others 2023(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 348 and Geo Varghese v. The State of
Rajasthan and another 2021 AIR SC 4764.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14423-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14345-2024
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant
contends that the petitioner(s) have been attributed specific roles in the video
recorded by the deceased-Dilshad. The deceased was sexually assaulted by the
petitioner-Sukhvir Singh alias Ladi and his father petitioner-Harvinder Singh
had slapped him, which instigated him to suicide.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing
the record of the case, it transpires that petitioner(s) have been specifically
mentioned in the video recorded by the deceased-Dilshad. In the said video, the
deceased had attributed specific roles by stating that petitioner-Sukhvir Singh
sexually assaulted him and claims to have chats on his mobile phone
corroborating the incident, while petitioner-Harvinder Singh slapped him.
Further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) regarding
decriminalization of Section 377 of the IPC is egregiously unfounded as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (supra) has decriminalized
Section 377 only to the extent of sexual activities indulged in by two
consenting, competent adults.
7. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula
Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010(1) SCC 750, speaking through
Justice Dalveer Bhandari, held as follows:
"19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi), 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 196 : 2009(5) RAJ 278 :
2009(11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word
"instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the
others. person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14423-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14345-2024
in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person
under section 306 Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide"
8. As such, the extent of involvement of the petitioner(s) can only be
ascertained post completion of investigation, during the trial before the
competent jurisdictional Court. The probable defence put up by the petitioner(s)
cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage, in view of HMT Watches
Limited vs. M.A. Abida (2015) 11 SCC 776 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan
Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another 2022 SCC Online SC 513,
wherein, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, the following observations
were made:
"17. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-
trial stage cane be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings
at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties
having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the
consequence then is that the proper forum, i.e., the trial Court is
ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the
accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal
process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque
and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of
convenience at this stage is in favour of the
complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity
to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the
presumption."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14423-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:041352
CRM-M-14345-2024
9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant
cases, this Court finds the present petitions to be bereft of any merit. Since no
case for quashing of FIR(supra) is made out, the present petitions stand
dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an
opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed
without being prejudiced by the same.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
20.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
