Ram Agrawal vs State of M.P. and Others

Sheel Nagu, J.—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.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The impugned FIR alleges the said offence against 07 accused including petitioner Ram Agrawal.

During investigation, the statements of parents and wife of the deceased were recorded. A suicide note dated 20.08.2013 allegedly written by the deceased was recovered. This suicide note was prima-facie opined by the handwriting expert to be written by the deceased.

The suicide note alleges specific allegation against co-accused namely Vipin Garg, Ashok Parashar, Vicky Shivhare and Gagan Garg. The suicide note does not seem to implicate the petitioner in specific term.

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.

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.

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.

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 Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) ILR (MP) 3042 : (2008) 2 MPHT 160 , Ramchandra Kushvaha Vs. State of M.P., (2009) 2 MPLJ 147 , Vivek Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P., (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 Vs. Ram Gopal Poddar and Another, (2011) 111 CLT 277 : (2010) 2 DMC 802 : (2010) 12 JT 473 : (2010) 11 SCALE 59 : (2010) 10 SCC 673 : (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 94 , Satish Mehra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, AIR 2013 SC 506 : (2013) CriLJ 411 : (2013) 1 Crimes 59 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 883 : (2012) 11 SCALE 193 , Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 9 AD 581 : AIR 2014 SC 1106 : (2013) 11 SCALE 28 : (2013) 10 SCC 591 : (2014) 2 SCJ 209 , Didigam Bikshapathi and Another Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 527 : (2008) 106 CLT 313 : (2008) CriLJ 724 : (2007) 13 JT 166 : (2007) 3 SCALE 535 : (2008) 2 SCC 403 : (2007) 12 SCR 694 , Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446 : (2009) CLT 1619 : (2009) 10 JT 698 : (2009) 11 SCALE 24 : (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2009) 13 SCR 230 : (2010) AIRSCW 645 , Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 4 JCC 2885 : (2012) 9 JT 329 : (2012) 9 JT 312 : (2012) 9 SCALE 58 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani etc. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1375 : (2001) CriLJ 1697 : (2001) 2 Crimes 125 : (2001) 3 JT 386 : (2001) 2 SCALE 421 : (2001) 3 SCC 703 : (2001) 2 UJ 834 : (2001) AIRSCW 1156 : (2001) AIRSCW 2493 : (2001) 2 Supreme 289 .

To analyze this submission of learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant statutory provisions.

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."

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 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."

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.

In the instant case, the factum of suicide is undisputed.

Now it remains to be seen whether the basic ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 of IPC are made out or not?

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.

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.

Testing the factual matrix of the case on the anvil of legal position as aforesaid, it is clear that the suicide note, which is the link between the suicide and the alleged instigation on the part of the petitioner, does not reflect the name of the petitioner.

From the above conspectus of facts, it gets revealed that implication of the petitioner appears to be solely based on vague allegation being one of the persons, who was demanding repayment from the deceased of the loan extended to him. Thus, the allegations stand out of conversation/transaction of loan where the borrower alleges certain pressure tactics on the part of the petitioner to ensure repayment of loan.

It has been held in various decisions that mere asking for repayment of loan cannot be stretched to the extent of falling within the definition of instigation u/S. 107 of IPC. The live and proximate link even on a prima-facie basis between the alleged instigation and the suicide is missing in the present case. In this respect, the decision 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 is worthy of reference.

In view of the above discussion, it would be injustice if the prosecution lodged by the impugned FIR against the petitioner is allowed to continue as the basic ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not made out in the present case against the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court by invoking inherent powers u/S.482, Cr.P.C. allows this M.Cr.C. Consequently, the FIR dated 09.09.2013 bearing Crime No. 443/2013 alleging offences punishable u/Ss.306/34 of IPC against petitioner Ram Agrawal and all the consequential criminal proceedings triggered by the said FIR are quashed.