IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE8H DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 R BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.56380/2016BETWEEN :
Smt. Parveen Taj W/o Sri Aejaz Pasha Aged about 40 years Working as Principal St.Pauls English High School Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru-560 022, R/at No.20, 2nd Main Road H.M.T.Layout, Mathikere, Bengaluru-560 054. (By Sri M.P.Srikanth, Advocate for Sri M.S.Parthasarathi, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka ...Petitioner by Sub-Inspector, Yeshwanthpura Police, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru-560 022.
2. Sri Shekar S/o Sri Muniyandi R/at No.38/40, 9th Main Akkiyappa Garden M.K.Nagar, Yeshwanthpura Bengauru-560 022. ...Respondents (By Sri H.R.Showri, HCGP for R1; R2-Notice dispensed with vide order dated 8.1.2020)
This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order Annexure-A dated 18.04.2016 passed by the XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.10481/2016 and all further proceedings including in charge Spl.C.C.No.382/2016 at Annexure-B. complaint the sheet This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
This petition has been filed by petitioner/accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings initiated in Spl.C.C.No.382/2016 pending on the file of Court of XXIV Additional CMM, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Though this case is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State.
4. The factual matrix of the case are that on 26.07.2015, the son of respondent No.2 was found hanging at 7:00 p.m. and subsequently, he came to know that petitioner being the secretary of H.K.G.N. Education Society, which is running St. Paul English High School and deceased, the son of respondent No.2 was studying in 10th Standard. He further contended that he has given an amount of Rs.500/- to his son in the morning and while going to Medical Store, he asked his son whether he paid the bill and at that time, his son did not reply. Subsequently, he came to know that his son was aware of doing certain electrical work and helping the school with regard to the problems in connection with the electricity. On 24.07.2015, the speaker of the Computer in the school did not work and the Principal asked him to repair. At that time, the computer got damaged as such, the Principal of the Institution stated that the same is worth Rs.40,000/- and he is required to pay that amount. As such, he
asked to bring his parents. It is further stated that if he is not going to pay the said amount, he will be removed from the institution and he was sent home by the Principal. Because of the said abetment, the deceased committed suicide. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.505/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet material does not constitute any of the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide. It is his further submission that there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306 of IPC. In order to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC, it requires commission of direct or active act by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push the victim into a position to commit suicide. In the present case, no such ingredients are forthcoming.
Without proper investigation, the Investing Agency has filed the charge sheet. It is further submitted that at the intervention of the political parties, only with an intention to harass the petitioner/accused, the present complaint has been filed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the contents of the complaint and other materials clearly indicate that the petitioner/accused insisted to pay the damages and he was also asked to bring the parents for reimbursement of the said amount otherwise, he will not be continued in the school. Because of the said words used, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging. It is further submitted that prima-facie there is material as against the petitioner/accused for having abetted the suicide. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
8. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicate that the deceased used to repair the electrical items in the school and on 24.07.2015, when he was repaired the computer, it was got damaged as such, the Principal of the Institution asked him to pay the damages and he was also asked to bring the parents for reimbursement of the said amount. In order to constitute abetment, as it involves the 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 under Section 306 of IPC. Apart from that, the intention or mens rea are also present while committing the offence. If there is no clear mens rea to
commit the offence, under such circumstance, it is not going to constitute an offence contemplated under Section 306 of IPC. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC626at paragraph Nos.44 to 49 it has been observed as under:
44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC 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/she committed suicide.
46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC361: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1290]. this Court has held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the complaint.
47. In a recent judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC628: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 6
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048]. this Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation, there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when the deceased was denied
permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18-1-2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question that remains to be answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner?.
49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may be
relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) are pending adjudication.
9. On careful perusal of the materials, there is no prima-facie case made out as against the petitioner/accused. Under such circumstances, this Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings initiated as against the petitioner/accused.
10. On close reading of the materials, it indicate that the only allegation, which has been made is that the deceased damaged the computer and the Principal of the Institution asked him to reimburse the same and requested to get his parents but by going through the entire material, neither there is any instigation nor any abetment to commit suicide and even the mens rea is also absent. Under such circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner/accused has made out a case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. In that light, the petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Spl.C.C.No.382/2016 pending on the file of Court of XXIV Additional CMM, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is hereby quashed. VBS Sd/- JUDGE