- 1 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.100167 OF2023BETWEEN:
1. SANDEEP BHATT S/O VINAYCHANDRA, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. VICE PRESIDENT (HR), HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, R/O. HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, AT POST. KUMARAPATTANAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115.
2. SANTOSH SHETTY S/O K.S. SHETTY, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGM (ER), HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, R/O. HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, AT POST. KUMARAPATTANAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115.
3. SHAM SUNDAR @ SHAYMSUNDAR KULKARNI S/O NARAYAN RAO, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. DGM, HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, R/O HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, AT POST. KUMARAPATTANAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD KHATAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, R/BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
2. NINGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA KAMMARAGATTI, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED HARIHAR POLYFIBERS EMPLOYEE, R/O KARUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME No.03/2023 DATED0401.2023 REGISTERED BY KUMARAPATTANAM P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 506, 34, 504 AND306OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 TO3AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023
ORDER1 The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.3/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 & 306 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Pramod Khatavi appearing on behalf of Shri P.P. Hittalamani for the petitioners; learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasuramth appearing for the respondent No.1 - State; & learned counsel Shri G.N. Narasammanavar appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant.
3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the father of one Parashuram N.K., who dies committing suicide. The complainant was an erstwhile employee of Harihar Poly Fibers. After his retirement, the appointment was offered to his son – one Parashuram N.K. The son was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent, intermittently. This leads the employer to issue several notices to the son directing him to report back to duties. On several such instances he does report back to duties and remains unauthorisedly absent. Last of the dates that he attended to the duty at the factory, is in the month of July-2022.-. 4 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 After about six months of him going untraceable, commits suicide on 03.01.2023. The 2nd respondent – complainant – father registers a complaint against the Management of Harihar Poly Fibers, on the death of his son by commission of suicide. The registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners, to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel Shri Pramod Khatavi takes this Court to the documents appended to the petition seeking to demonstrate that the petitioner is in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent right from the date of his appointment. A chart is appended to the petition which depicts that the son of the complainant had remained unauthorisedly absent on 15 occasions from 08.08.2014 to 21.12.2022, it goes untraceable for close to three months and then commits suicide. He would submit that there can be no abetment by the petitioner to the commission of suicide of the son of the complainant as there is no proximity to the incident with any harassment even allegable qua petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would seek to refute the submissions of the - 5 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 learned Senior Counsel contending, that a life is lost and the investigation in the least should conducted, against the petitioners, who are responsible for the death of the son of the complainant. He would therefore seek dismissal of the petition.
6. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant being an erstwhile employee of the Factory is also not in dispute. After leaving of the employment of his son is offered the employment is a matter of record. The allegation against the son the complainant, by the Management of the Factory, is that he has remained unatuhorisedly absent at least on 15 occasions from 08.08.2014 onwards. A chart is appended as to what action is taken on every occasion of unauthorized - 6 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 absence against the son of the complainant. The chart is as follows: GRASIN INDUSTRIES LIMITED HARIHAR POLYFIBERS Name Sri Paashuram Designation Operator N.K. Emp. No.25544 Grade II Department Pulp Mill Date of Joining 02-08-2010 Sl. Date of Misconduct Absent Punishment No.Letter / days memo 1 08.08.2014 Unauthorized 4 Issued caution memo absence for July 2014 2 06.01.2016 Unauthorized 3 Issued caution memo absence for Dec. 2015 3 22.04.2016 Unauthorized 3 Issued caution memo absence for March 206 4 15.09.2016 Unauthorized 3 Issued caution memo absence for Aug. 2016 5 14.11.2016 Unauthorized 14 Issued Sternly absence from warned memo January 2016 to October 2016 6 15.12.2016 Unauthorized - Counselled & received absence apology letter 7 27.06.2017 Unauthorized - Counselled & received absence apology letter 8 08.08.2017 Unauthorized - Counselled & received absence apology letter 9 21.09.2017 Unauthorized 24 Warned absence from Feb to Aug. 2017 10 21.12.2017 Unauthorized - Counselled & received absence apology letter 11 15.01.2018 Unauthorized 12 3% fine imposed absence from Oct. to Dec. 2017 12 10.04.2018 Unauthorized 15 1 days suspension absence from Jan.18 - 7 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 to Mar.18. 13
20.12.2018 Unauthorized - Counselled & received absence apology letter 14 18.01.2019 Unauthorized 25 2 days suspension absence from Oct.18 to Dec.18. 15
12.07.2019 Unauthorized 12 Sternly warned absence from April 19 to June 2019 16 12.10.2019 Unauthorized 17 3% fine imposed absence from July 19 to Sept.2019 17 28.01.2020 Unauthorized 17 Sternly warned absence from Oct.19 to Dec.19 18 03.02.2020 Negligence of work - 3% fine imposed 19 31.08.2020 Unauthorized - Received Apology absence letter 20 25.01.2021 Unauthorized 84 3% fine imposed absence from July 20 to Dec.2020 21 01.02.2021 Unauthorized - Received Apology absence letter 22 21.06.2021 Caught on duty in - 2 days suspension Drunken Condition 23 28.06.2021 Major Misconduct as - Request letter Drunken on duty received from wife for seeking apology, assurance given by Trade Union Witnessing the said letter 24 28.10.2021 Unauthorized 18 Sternly warned absence from July, August & September 2021 25 14.11.2021 Unauthorized - Apology Letter absence received 26 18.02.2022 Unauthorized 10 Sternly warned absence for October 2021 27 07.03.2022 Unauthorized - Apology Letter absence received 28 18.03.2022 Unauthorized 8 Sternly warned absence Jan. and - 8 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 Feb. 2022 29 18.04.2022 Unauthorized - Apology Letter absence received 30 05.09.2022 Unauthorized 50 Process initiated for absence from July Domestic Enquiry 2022 to August 2022 31 22.10.2022 Unauthorized - Received Apology absence letter stating Family problems 32 12.21.2022 Unauthorized - Enquiry Notice Issued absence 9. Several notices on unauthorized absence as indicated (supra) were issued to the petitioner. Reply to one such notice issued, reads as follows: “To, Date:
22. 10.22 Parashuram N.K. VPHR E.N:
25544. H.P.F. Dept: Recovery Kumarapatnam. (cid:1)ಷಯ : (cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:6)ಜ(cid:8) (cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)ದರ ಬ(cid:15)(cid:16), ಸ(cid:2), (cid:3)(cid:4) ಅಂದ(cid:8) ಪರ(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13) ಎ(cid:15).(cid:16). (cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)ಂದ(cid:23) (cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:24)(cid:25).(cid:26).ಎ(cid:27). (cid:28)ಕವ(cid:28) (cid:31) !" #ಂ!ನ%& (cid:16)ಲಸ ()(cid:17)*+, ನಮ. (cid:31) ಟ"#ಂ0ನ 1234(cid:28)ಗ(cid:18)6 (cid:17)(cid:18)ಸ7 89 :ಜ(cid:28) ((cid:31)9<*ೕ(cid:22). ಅದ(cid:16)> 4ರಣ "ನಮ. ಮ(cid:22)ಯ%& A7 4Bಯ ಆDೕಗE FಂG ಹದ6IJ , ಮ(cid:22)ಯ%&ನ KಯL*ಕ 4ರಣಗM ಉಂOP ನನQ ಮ(cid:22)ಯ%&ನ RS(cid:17)ಗM ಸ(cid:28) ಇಲ&Uದ,(cid:23) 4ರಣUಂVP89:ಜ(cid:28) ((cid:31)9<*ೕ(cid:22) :W4"(cid:22)ಯ Yಯಮಗಳ(cid:4)Q %ಸ(cid:21) ತ\]. ((cid:31)9<*ೕ(cid:22). ದಯ^IJ _‘R ಇ(cid:4)Q aಂ7 b(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:28)ೕ(cid:17)ಯ ತ\]. (ಡ(cid:21) 89 :ಜ(cid:28) (ಡ(cid:21) (cid:16)ಲಸ ((cid:31)dಂ) eೕf<*ೕ(cid:22)ಂ+, 1234(cid:28)ಗಳ%& _# bg(cid:19)h* i(cid:18)dMj<*ೕ(cid:22)."
- 9 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 ಆದ,(cid:28)ಂದ, 1234(cid:28)ಗM ನನQ(cid:4)Q _‘R (cid:16)ಲಸ (ಡk ಅ(cid:4)ಮ(cid:17) dಡl(cid:16)ಂ+ ಕಳಕ(cid:18)Bಂದ l(cid:31)dMj<*ೕ(cid:22). ಇಂ(cid:19) ತಮ(cid:22) (cid:1)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25), Sd/- Parashuram N.K. 25544
10. The aforesaid are all a matter of record.
11. What transpires later is that on 03.01.2023, the son of the complainant commits suicide. The commission of suicide is now attributed to the petitioners. The attribution is on the score that they have harassed the son of the complainant during his employment and has not reinstated him into service despite repeated requests and therefore this has led to the commission of suicide. The chart supra would clearly indicate that the son of the complainant last attends to the duty in the month of July- 2022 and has been declared to be unauthorisedly absent since then for the 15th time. One reply to the recall notice emerged is on 22.10.2022 supra where the deceased would indicate that he has family problems and therefore, he was not able to attend the duties. He tenders apology and pleads that he be taken back to duties. He was not taken back to duties. The death by suicide happens on 03.01.2023. If the son of the complainant has not - 10 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 attended to duties from July-2022 and commits suicide on 03.01.2023, it is ununderstandable as to how it would meet the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, which is a necessary for proving an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
12. In the light of the aforesaid facts before embarking upon the consideration of the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to notice the provisions of law and its interpretation by the Apex Court. The offences alleged against the petitioners are the ones punishable under Sections 306, 504 & 506 of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows: “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.
13. For an offence to become punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the ingredients of it as obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC is necessarily to be present. Therefore, it is necessary to notice Section 107 of the IPC, it reads 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 - 11 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 (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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Analysis of the aforesaid provisions of law need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, the Apex Court has, in plethora of judgments, considered the purport of - 12 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 Section 306 of the IPC qua the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC. I deem it appropriate to notice the law as has been laid down by the Apex Court from time to time on the issue. The Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB1 has held as follows:- “20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus: “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.
21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, 1 (2017) 1 SCC433- 13 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. (Emphasis supplied) In the light of afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court, to attribute act of abetment to suicide against an accused there has to be some link and proximity of the act of the accused with the deceased who committed suicide.
15. The Apex Court, a little earlier, in the case of RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH2 considers what is abetment and delineates as follows:- “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 2(2001) 9 SCC618- 14 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC73 1994 SCC (Cri) 107]. this Court has cautioned 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 her 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Apex Court in the case of AMALENDU PAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL3, has held as follows:: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and 3 (2010) 1 SCC707- 15 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted.-. 16 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. The Apex Court in the case of S.S. CHHEENA V. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN4 has held as follows: “24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]. had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “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 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.
25. 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. 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 IPC there has to be a clear mens 4 (2010) 12 SCC190- 17 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 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.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to- day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
27. When we carefully scrutinise and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) - 18 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 18. The Apex Court in a later judgment in the case of GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB5 while considering the entire spectrum of law has held as follows: “13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or *** Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and 5 (2020) 10 SCC200- 19 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined whether the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account.
18. In Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC595 (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 127]. , which again was a case of wife's unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J.
rightly observed as under : (SCC p. 606, para
24) “24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5- 2008 (P&H)]. that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.” (Emphasis supplied) - 20 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 19. The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER6, again delineates the issue and holds as follows: “9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. Except the self- serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he has carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased. ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it 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. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist 6 AIR2021SC4313- 21 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also. This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)1 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2 in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as under: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have - 22 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
10. In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan3 this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under: “25. 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. 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 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
11. In the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur4 this Court has considered the scope of the provision under Section 482, Cr.PC and has laid down the steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC. Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under: “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: - 23 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?. 30.2 Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?. 30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?. 30.4 Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?. 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.
12. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material on record and examined the facts of the case on hand. Except the statement that the deceased was in relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was - 24 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about the calls which were being made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of S.I. Manoj Kumar recorded on 05.07.2018. In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police post and complained against the deceased who was continuously calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever.
13. In view of the same, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, as narrated hereinabove, are considered on the bedrock of the law elucidated by the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is that there is no ingredient of Section 107 of the IPC present, even to its remotest sense, in the case at hand, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.-. 25 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 21. The other offences alleged are under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. They read as follows:
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.-Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
It has become a habit to lay Sections 504 and 506, in every offence, merely because they are non-cognizable. But, nonetheless, they are also offences for which trial at times can - 26 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 be conducted. Therefore, those offences also should bear scrutiny as to whether they are present at all, in any given case.
22. Section 504 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Whoever would intentionally insult and thereby gives provocation to any person and that provocation to cause him to break the public peace, the person is said to commit an offence under Section 504. Breach of public peace cannot be imagined in the case at hand. It is, therefore, recklessly laid which would mean that it ought not to have been invoked in the facts of the case.
23. The other provision is Section 506 which deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 of the IPC and it reads as follows: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom - 27 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property is said to be criminally intimidating the other.
24. The Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED WAJID V. STATE OF U.P.7 after analysing and elucidating Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC holds as follows: “SECTIONS503 504 AND506OF THE IPC24 Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:— “Section 503. Criminal intimidation. —Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, 7 2023 SCC OnLine SC951- 28 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
25. Section 504 reads thus:— “Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
26. Section 506 reads thus:— “Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:—
1) Threatening a person with any injury; - 29 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar - 30 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR78 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:— “To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the - 31 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in all the aforesaid judgments quoted supra and in the case of MOHAMMED WAJID (supra), further proceedings / investigation against the petitioners cannot be permitted to be continued.
26. Though crime is registered on 04.01.2023 and the matter is still at the stage of investigation, generally in a case where the offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the Courts would be loathe to interfere at the stage of crime, but in view of the peculiar facts of the case as - 32 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 are narrated hereinabove, to prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS8 would be apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should 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 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 cog- nizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an 8 1992 Supp (1) SCC335- 33 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com- plaint 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 instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
27. The postulates laid down by the Apex Court in the case of BHAJAN LAL (supra) would clearly become applicable to the - 34 - NC:
2023. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.100167 of 2023 fact of the case at hand. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime and take away the Damocles sword hanging on the head of the petitioners, for no offence committed by them, failing which, it would become an abuse of process of law, degenerate into harassment and result in patent injustice. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER(i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The registration of a crime in Crime No.3/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 & 306 of the IPC stands quashed qua petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*/ct:bck List No.:
2. Sl No.: 1