Bhagirath vs State of M.P.

J.K. Jain, J—This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed to quash the FIR in regard to Crime No. 22/2015 registered at Police Station Karanwas, District Rajgarh for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

Brief facts giving rise to this application are that on 01.02.2015, at 10.10 p.m., a merg No. 02/2015 has been registered at Police Station Karanwas stating that Kaluram met with an accident with train and his dead body was lying at Bhatkhedi culvert near railway track. P.C. Lot ASI of Police Station Karanwas had prepared an inquest panchnama and recovered a suicidal note from the dead body. During merg inquiry it was disclosed that after repeated demands the applicants were not ready to pay Rs. 9,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively to the deceased, therefore, he committed suicide. On this basis Crime No. 22/2015 under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicants has been registered at Police Station Karanwas. After investigation final report has been filed against the applicants alleging that they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The applicants have filed this application stating that the allegations made in FIR are false and even if they have taken at the face value no offence is made out for prosecuting the applicants under Section 306 of the IPC. Thus, prayed for quashing the FIR.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution case is depend on a suicidal note and the statements recorded by the Police during investigation. If this material is taken on its face value even though no offence is made out against the applicants that they have abetted the deceased for committing suicide. Learned Counsel for the applicants cited the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238 : (2011) CriLJ 1900 : (2011) 2 JCC 1078 : (2011) 3 JT 32 : (2011) 2 RCR(Criminal) 272 : (2011) 3 SCALE 78 : (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC(Cri) 1 : (2011) 3 SCR 437 : (2011) AIRSCW 1601 : (2011) 2 Supreme 220 in which it is held that there should be some proximate link between the event and factum of suicide. In the present case there is absolutely no link between the denial of payment by the applicants and factum of suicide committed by the deceased. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the Court should invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent an abuse of process of Court.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer. He submits that there is ample evidence against the applicants that they have not only denied to pay huge amount to the deceased but they have threatened him, therefore, he has no option except to commit suicide. Thus, the application is liable to be dismissed.

Before adverting the issue it will be useful to refer the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan (supra) in which it is held that:--

"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.

The intention of 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."

The FIR reads as under:--

"FIR:--

The statement of Rajkumari reads as under:--

It reveals that at relevant time deceased Kaluram and applicants were employee of Krashi Upaj Mandi Pachore. The applicants have created pressure on the deceased to be involved in illegal activities. The deceased has to recover Rs. 9,50,000/- from the applicant Munna Patel and Rs. 2,50,000/- from the applicant Bhagirath but after repeated demands they were not ready to pay the amount to the deceased and they used to give threat on phone to the deceased. Therefore, deceased was very perturbed. In the suicidal note it is not mentioned that the applicants used to harass him and threatened him on phone. This fact came in his wife''s statement. From this material it cannot be inferred that the applicants were involved in a mental process of instigating the deceased or intentionally aiding the deceased for committing suicide. No positive act on the part of the applicants has been shown in this regard. There is an absence of mens rea to commit the offence. Thus from the facts of this case there is no material to frame the charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohan (supra) held as under:--

"In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to 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 cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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."

In the light of above pronouncement I have considered the facts of this case. The allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, therefore, this is a fit case in which the powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised.

Consequently the application filed under Section 482 of the Code is hereby allowed. FIR registered in regard to Crime No. 22/15 registered at Police Station Karanwas, District Rajgarh against the present applicants is hereby quashed. Proceedings initiated on the basis of the FIR are also quashed. Thus, the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. Copy of the order be immediately sent to the concerned Court for compliance.