1. The inherent powers of this Court u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked for quashment of FIR and the consequential prosecution registered as crime No. 443/2013 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for the offence punishable u/s. 306/34 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
3. The foundational factual matrix of the case are that the impugned FIR was lodged on 09.09.2013 Annexure P-1 relating to an incident dated 21.08.2013 when the information regarding commission of cognizable offence u/s. 306/34 of IPC was furnished to the Police Station Padav, Dist. Gwalior as regards the deceased Deepesh having committed suicide by hanging himself which was alleged to be abetted inter alia by the petitioner. The abetment was alleged to be based upon undue pressure exerted and mental and physical torture inflicted upon the deceased inter alia by the petitioner. The FIR named seven accused persons namely Bunti @ Vipin Garg (petitioner herein), Ashok Parashar , Son of Ashok Parashar Rahul, Shiva, Vicky Shivhare, Gagan Garg and Ram Agrawal. It is further not disputed that charge sheet after investigation in the said crime has since been filed.
4. During investigation, statement of mother, father and wife of the deceased were recorded. A suicide note dated 20.08.2013 allegedly written by the deceased was also recovered. In the suicide note allegations were leveled against the petitioner as well as other co-accused and as regards allegation made against the petitioner it was stated in the suicide note that the deceased was abused, petitioner mentally harassed and victimized by the petitioner by threatening at his shop along with four other persons. The suicide note alleged against the petitioner that despite the deceased having re-paid the loan taken from the petitioner and other co-accused a further sum of Rs. Six Lakhs was sought to be extracted from the deceased. The suicide note further alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner abused parents of the deceased and also intimidated the deceased. It is further not disputed that the charges u/s. 306/34 of IPC are already framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that on prima facie reading of material collected by the prosecution pursuant to the alleged impugned FIR the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide are not made out. It is further contended by the petitioner that mere making of demand for re-payment of loan does not constitute instigation, illegal omission or commission or aiding any person so as to constitute abetment as defined u/s. 107 of IPC.
6. In sum and substance learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the basic ingredients of abetment as defined u/s. 107 of IPC are not made out as there is no link much less alive or proximate link between suicide and alleged action of the petitioner in demanding re-payment of loan extended to the deceased.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that sufficient material was available with the prosecution to not only lodge the FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused u/s. 306/34 of IPC but also to prosecute them in the trial court by filing of the charge sheet.
8. To analyze this submission of learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant statutory provisions.
9. The offence u/s. 306 of IPC which for convenience and ready reference is reproduced herein below :-
Section 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.
10. Since abetment is the cause which is stated to have motivated the deceased to commit suicide, Section 107 of IPC defining abetment is reproduced herein below for convenience and ready reference :-
Section 107 - Abetment of a thing
A person abets the doing of a thing, who
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission lakes 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 willful 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.
11. Bare reading of Section 306 of IPC (supra) discloses the existence of two essential ingredients for establishing an offence of abetment to commit suicide. The first is factum of suicide by the deceased and the other is the act of another person abetting the said commission of suicide.
12. In the instant case, the factum of suicide is undisputed.
13. Now it remains to be seen whether the basic ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 of IPC are made out or not?
14. Plain reading of Section 107 of IPC reflects that for establishing abetment three ingredients i.e instigation, conspiracy with other person to do or not to do an act or intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, the doing of thing, which is alleged to be abetted.
15. From the above, it is evident that instigation, conspiracy and intentionally aiding by omission or commission compelling other person to do an act which is unlawful whether that act is perpetuated or not then the person instigating conspiring and intentionally aiding can be held liable for abetment of the offence which is committed or likely to be committed by other person.
16. Testing the factual matrix of the case on the anvil of above said legal position, it is revealed that the allegations were of various act of abusing and intimidation extended to the deceased inter alia by the petitioner with the object of compelling the deceased to re-pay the loan said to be borrowed by the deceased from the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The suicide note discloses the allegation against each accused individually.
17. No doubt that mere act of demand for repayment of loan in terms of law cannot be categorized as an offence, however, when the allegation is of mental cruelty extended by way of repeatedly using abusive words, intimidation it needs to be seen whether it shall fall within the four corners of abetment.
18. Undisputedly, the act of uttering abusive words and intimidation by itself are offences u/Ss. 294 and 506 of IPC respectively. Thus in the present case, abetment arising out of intimidation and abusive words thrown at the deceased and his close relatives created circumstances of such nature which compelled the deceased to end his life by committing suicide.
19. Whether the petitioner accused really intended to instigate, conspire or aid to compel the deceased to commit suicide, is to be decided by adducing of evidence. In other words, mens rea (criminal intend) cannot be deciphered at this preliminary stage.
20. At this preliminary stage, even the factum of existence of close and proximate link between the act of suicide and the act of instigation/conspiracy/aiding requires adducing and marshalling of evidence for its establishment. Thus no finding can be rendered in that regard at this stage.
21. Considering the allegations contained in the charge sheet including the suicide note, the basic ingredient of offences u/s. 306/34 of IPC appear to be made out on prima facie basis.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents- State and victim have placed reliance on various decisions of Apex Court and this Court in support of their rival submissions, namely the cases of Babbi @ Jitendra and Ors. v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (III) MPWN SN 8, Ramchandra S/o Jagannath Singh Kushwaha v. State of M.P. reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 147, Vivek Kumar Jain and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Anr. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 75, Radheshyam v. State of M.P. Thro' Police Station Singroli, Neemuch (M.P.) reported in 2014 Cr.L.R (MP) 416, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673, Sathish Mehra v. State of N.C.T of Delhi and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 506, Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2014 SC 1106, Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. v. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2008 SC 527, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cr.) 367, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. reported in (2013) 1 SCC (Cr.) 986 and Suresh alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) SCC (Cr.) 621.
23. This Court after pursing the above said citations is of the view that each of this case are based on the unique factual matrix attending therein and do not lay down any general principle of law except decisions of the Apex Court which have been duly considered in letter and spirit while rendering the findings supra.
24. Consequently, this Court finds that no illegality is committed in registration of offence punishable u/s. 306/34 of IPC against the petitioner registered as crime No. 443/2013 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior.
25. Accordingly, no case for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. appears to exist and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed.
No order as to cost.