Ashish Sharma @ Pintu And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Codeâ€) for

quashing the summoning order dated 23.01.2019 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.461 of 2019, State vs. Ashish Sharma and another,

pending in the court of A.C.J.M 1st Dehradun (for short ‘the Case’).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The wheel of justice in the case has been rolled out on an F.I.R., which was lodged on 13.02.2018 under Section 306 I.P.C. by respondent no.2.

According to it, the younger brother of respondent no.2 was unmarried. On 30.01.2018, he died of poisoning. Respondent no.2 found a suicide note

written by the deceased Sachin, in which he has attributed his death to the petitioners. Other details have also been recorded in the F.I.R. Investigation

was carried out. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under Section 306 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that no case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out; in fact petitioner Ashish has helped the first

informant in admitting his younger brother, the deceased, to the hospital; it appears that under financial crises the deceased committed suicide; the

offence depends upon the sensitivity of a person; in the instant case it is argued that no case is made out against the petitioners and continuance of

proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on principles of law as laid down in the case of Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B. (2005) 2

Supreme Court Cases 659 and Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.342 of 2011, Mahesh Yadav vs. State of Uttarakhand and another. In the case

of Netai Dutta the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that:-

“6. In the suicide note, expect 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 wilful 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 instigated or

resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.â€​

In the case of Mahesh Yadav (supra) this Court found that suicide not does not constitute any offence and accordingly quashed the proceedings.

Whether to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or not, it is a matter, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each

case, there cannot be two cases alike. Principles of law are made applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the instant case, the deceased has in a suicide note recorded that due to frustration in life he is committing suicide and held the petitioners

responsible for his suicide. It is recorded in the suicide note that the petitioners committed fraud with the deceased; took Rs.5 lakhs from them, which

they did not return and when requested to return money, the deceased was held liable to repay the money to them. The brother of deceased, namely,

Anil Dhiman was beaten by them and documents along with cheque book were also snatched. The petitioner Ashish had told that he can manage

police also the deceased and his brother cannot do anything against them. According to the suicide note the money, which deceased had given to

petitioners was proceeds of sale of his house. It is recorded in the deceased’s suicide note that they made many phone calls to the deceased,

which may be checked from call details. At the end of the suicide note very importantly it is recorded that the petitioner Ashish has also threatened

and abused the deceased and he was arriving at the house of the deceased. Deceased cannot bear humiliation any more.

Mere words written in a suicide note cannot held someone responsible for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The Court is cautions of the fact

that in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code deeper examination of the facts has to be avoided. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh

Chander And Another (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that:-

“35………………………………instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in

regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a

person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence……………………â€​

In the instant case, according to the suicide note out from a sale proceed of the house of the deceased, dishonestly Rs.5 lakhs were taken by the

petitioners, which they did not return. The petitioners threatened, and humiliated, the deceased; the life of the deceased was made miserable and under

those circumstances, according to the suicide note, the deceased found it difficult to bear humiliation any more and he committed suicide. Suicide note

simply does not blame the petitioners for his death instead it records the acts and actions taken by the petitioners, which compelled the deceased to

commit suicide. The truthfulness of the averments is a matter to be tested at trial but having considered the submission, under the fats and

circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference under Section 482 of the Code and the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed.