PRAMODBHAI HARISINH GADHAVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

2007, which subsequently came to be confirmed at the time of admission of the petition. Accordingly, the proceedings of Sessions Case No.69 of 2003 have remained stayed during the pendency of the present petition.

5. Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the petitioners invited attention to the allegations made in the first information report to submit that on a bare reading of the first information report as well as the suicide note, it is apparent that these are grievances of the deceased against certain persons and that vague allegations of harassment and non-cooperation have been made. Referring to the provisions of section 107 IPC, it was submitted that for the purpose of abetting commission of an offence, the person should be instigated to do something. There should be a conspiracy for doing that thing and that the person should intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It was submitted that insofar as the offence alleged in the present case is concerned, the allegations of mens rea would be important. Referring to the allegations made in the first information report, it was submitted that none of the ingredients are borne out from the first information report as well as the suicide note, hence, no offence under section 306 IPC can be said to have been made out. It was contended that there is nothing to show that the harassment alleged to have been caused to the deceased by the petitioners herein was of such a nature so as to make him SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT commit suicide and that even if the allegations made in the first information report are accepted at face value and taken to be true, the same do not make out any offence.

6. Referring to the allegations made in the first information report, it was pointed out that undisputedly since the last one and half months, the deceased had not gone to the school. It was submitted that on a reading of the first information report in its entirety, it appears that the deceased was depressed and that he was under an impression that he was not given the honour due to him. Referring to the statements of the witnesses, it was submitted that it appears that the deceased must be suffering from depression. From the statement of the wife of the deceased, it was pointed out that though he was on leave, his wife was not aware of it which is indicative of the fact that he must be under depression. Referring to the statements of the teachers, it was submitted that the same demonstrate that there was no enmity between the deceased and the petitioners and that the deceased was under depression. It was urged that on a bare reading of the charge-sheet papers, it becomes clear that there is no specific allegation from which, it can be said that the petitioners had caused such mental torture so as to make him commit suicide. It was urged that considering the fact that the deceased had not attended the school for one to one and half months, there is no question of continuation of non-cooperation or harassment. According to the learned counsel, the first information report is based upon hear-say, inasmuch as, the suicide note does not make the allegations which are levelled in the first information report.

7. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2010 (3) GLH 270, wherein it has been held that insofar as section 306 IPC is concerned, merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It was, accordingly, submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted on its face value, still on the basis of the material brought on record by the prosecution, an offence under section 306 IPC is not made out against the petitioners. It was submitted that a perusal of the suicide note as well as the statements recorded by the police do not show any instigation on the part of the petitioners to the deceased to do something which ultimately resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this High Court in the case of A. K. Chaudhary and others v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) GLH 444, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W. B., (2005) 2 SCC 659, as well as the decision of this High Court in the case of S. G. Munia and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2002) 3 GLH 417. It was, accordingly, submitted that this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings in their entirety.

8. Per contra, Mr. Girish Das, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – first informant submitted that the suicide note does make out a case of instigation under section 306 IPC. Moreover, the suicide note cannot be read dehors the other SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT material, including the statements of some of the persons recorded during the course of investigation. It was contended that there is ample material on record for presuming that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. It was submitted that the trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge against the petitioners and no case is made out at this stage to warrant interference in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. It was further submitted that it is true that on a bare reading of the first information report, if no offence is made out, the same can be quashed, however, in the present case, the offence is certainly made out. It was submitted that pursuant to the first information report, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and the court has framed charge after a full fledged inquiry, under the circumstances, it is apparent that there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein.

9. Referring to the suicide note, it was submitted that the deceased has stated that the petitioners herein were ridiculing him, which means that they have actively abetted in the commission of the offence and that the ingredients of abetment as contemplated under section 107 IPC are clearly satisfied. It was submitted that sufficient cause has been made out against the petitioners-accused and that the ingredients of section 306 and section 114 of the IPC are clearly made out, hence, quashing of the first information report at this stage would tantamount to injustice. Referring to the various statements of witnesses and the other suicide notes, it was submitted that the deceased had no other reason for committing suicide. He had no other problems, no financial SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT burden, or any other reason for taking such a drastic step. It was urged that the only reason for committing suicide is that because he belonged to a backward caste, he was being pressurized by the petitioners to take a transfer from his school. The reason for doing so was that the petitioner No.1 – Pramodbhai Gadhvi was at serial No.3 in the seniority list of teachers; hence, if the deceased took a transfer and went to some other school, the petitioner No.1 would become the head master. It was submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the deceased was subjected to mental torture by all the three petitioners and his respect was not maintained. Under the circumstances, an offence under section 306 IPC having been clearly made out, there is no warrant for intervention by this court.

10.It was further submitted that all the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioners, are cases where allegations had been made by the deceased employee against his superior, whereas there is a distinction in the present case, inasmuch as here, it is a junior teacher who has harassed the senior teacher on account of his caste. It was urged that under the circumstances, at this stage, there is no warrant for quashing the complaint or the proceedings. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A. P. (supra) wherein it has been held that the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. It was further held that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. In the said case, the Court found that the suicide note clearly refers to the acts of the accused appellant and the roles played by them and upheld the decision of the High Court in rejecting the prayer for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. Adverting to the facts of the present case it was submitted that the suicide note clearly refers to the acts of the accused-petitioners and that there being ample evidence on record to show the culpability of the petitioners, this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion under section 482 of the Code.

11.In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether on the allegations made in the first information report read with suicide note and other evidence collected during the course of investigation, whether an offence under section 306 IPC can be stated to have been made out.

12.At this juncture, it may be germane to refer to the contents of the first information report in some detail. In the first information report, it has been alleged by the first informant that his elder brother – Kiritbhai Maganbhai Parmar was SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT working as a teacher in the primary school since the last twenty years and for about two years, as a headmaster. His wife Savitaben was working as a staff nurse at the Kheda Civil Hospital and his elder brother was residing with her at Kheda and used to come for discharging his duties during the course of his service and since his job was at his native place, he used to come to the house of the first informant almost daily. That upon inquiring, he would normally say that things are going on well with his service, however since last about six months, his elder brother used to be depressed and his mental state did not appear to be normal. He had twice asked him the reason for being depressed, but his brother was not giving any proper answer. However, he had come to know that since a period of about a month, his brother had gone on leave. About a fortnight ago, his brother had come to Ranuj whereupon, he had asked him as to why he had gone on leave, whereupon he had said that he was the headmaster but the three accused, during the course of his employment were ridiculing him. Since he was a backward caste teacher, Gadhvi did not like it and was instigating the Sarpanch and Chhatrasinh to get him transferred and that he was fed up with that harassment. That recently, a Gram Sabha had been arranged in the village and he had asked Gadhvibhai to prepare the children for giving a programme, but he did not agree to it and therefore, being fed up, he had decided to go on leave and that till he was transferred, he would not go to his school. Thereafter on

13.12.2003, his elder brother had come to his house and asked the first informant to go to his school and get his salary, and when he refused to do so, he had given him an authority letter and he took the authority letter and went to the school. At that time, Urmilaben who was discharging duties at the school and SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT Pramodbhai Gadhvi were present at the office, whom he had met and gave the authority letter and asked them to give him his brother's salary whereupon, Pramodbhai Gadhvi had said that the salary will be handed over only when his brother Kiritbhai Parmar comes. Hence, he told him that the relations between the staff had gone sour whereupon, Pramodbhai had said that there is nothing like that. Hence, he had come back and told his brother about everything. In the meanwhile, Gadhvibhai, Urmilaben and Shaileshbhai who was also a teacher in the school, came to their house and upon seeing them, his brother in a pained voice asked him as to why they had come to their house. He said, “Till today, what has the staff done for me? You people have not given me any cooperation and despite my having written an authority letter, why have you not given my salary to my brother?” Upon his saying so, Pramodbhai Gadhvi got angry and started asking him as to when they had not extended cooperation. Whereupon his brother had told, “you have never accepted me as headmaster and have never given me cooperation in the official administrative work and throughout the day, in one way or the other, you have harassed me.” That his brother had uttered such words at his house and had told everyone that “due to your harassment, I will either resign or will join service only after I am transferred.” Whereupon Urmilaben handed over his salary to him and thereafter they left. It is further alleged in the first information report that as they had to go for some social work, he was going to Kheda with his brother at which point of time, his brother had told him that in the school, these people were not maintaining his respect and by being disrespectful, were harassing him and that since the last six months, the Sarpanch of Ranuj village – Gordhanbhai Vasabhai as well as SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT Chhatrasinh Ramsinh of the cooperative society and Pramodbhai Gadhvi from the school staff were giving him tremendous mental harassment as he belonged to a backward caste and were telling him that a person of the village will not do at the village school, hence, he should either take a transfer or resign so that Pramodbhai Gadhvi becomes the headmaster and that, therefore, he was not reporting on duty. That he (the first informant) had told him that he should come to the school and that they would try to find out some way and thereafter, he had left. That on 15.12.2003 at about 3 O'clock in the afternoon, Dineshbhai Samantbhai and Pravinbhai Kanubhai Parmar from the village had come and told him that his brother Kiritbhai had been brought in an unconscious state to his house at Ranuj and that thereafter, they had taken him out of the rickshaw and put him on the bed whereupon some smell of poison was coming from his mouth and upon asking his brother, he had told him that now he should take care of everything. Being worried, he had taken Rs.5,000/- from his uncle and taking his brother in Dineshbhai’s rickshaw to the hospital, however, by the time they reached Paloli cross-roads the rickshaw was going at a slow speed and his brother's condition was serious and hence, they had taken another rickshaw and were taking him to Karamsad. At that time his condition deteriorated, hence they first took him to the Government Hospital, at Sojitra where the doctor after giving him primary treatment, asked them to immediately take him elsewhere, whereupon they had taken him in a taxi to Aditya Hospital, Petlad, where he soon died during the course of treatment. From his pocket, a suicide note had been found wherein it had been stated that he had committed suicide on account of harassment at the hands of teacher Gadhvibhai, the SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT village sarpanch Gordhanbhai and Chhatrasinh.

13.The suicide note, as translated into English, reads thus : “Since quite some time, I am on leave. I do not like coming to the school. The reason is that there is a teacher Pramodbhai H. Gadhvi, who is mentally harassing me since the month of June. If I go from here, he would become headmaster. To become the headmaster, he is harassing me. He has kept all the teachers in his hands due to which, I do not get any cooperation. Gadhvibhai sits with the Village Sarpanch – Gordhanbhai Vasibhai Parmar and Chhatrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, Manager of the Cooperative Society. Hence, they are also subjecting me to mental harassment. Gordhanbhai Vasibhai and Chhatrasinh Ramsinh both told me that master, get a transfer from here and give your resignation. A village master will not do. Since I belong to a backward caste, they do not like me. Hence, I am consuming poison and committing suicide. I have to shorten my life because of these persons.”

14.From the statements of the witnesses, it comes out that the deceased had said that he would not attend the school till he was transferred. The record of the case also shows that the deceased had stopped coming to the school from 14.11.2003 and did not take part in the Gram Sabha Programme organized by the Government on 20.11.2003. The Taluka Development Officer, therefore, called for his explanation, in response to which he had stated that he was not well. The statements of the brother and the wife of the deceased indicate that he was depressed and not in a good mental state as according to him, he was being harassed by the petitioners who were subjecting him to ridicule in the presence of the school staff and thereby, his honour was not being maintained and the school staff being with the petitioner No.1, was not cooperating with him. His SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT grievance against the petitioner No.1 is also that he had proposed presentation of a programme by the students in the Gram Sabha but the petitioner No.1 had not agreed to his proposal. That the three petitioners together were harassing him on account of his caste and were asking him to take a transfer as they did not want him in the village. He was, therefore, fed up. He had also asked two of the witnesses to help get a transfer.

15.In the statements of school teachers recorded during the course of investigation, they have stated that there was no non-cooperation on their part. The record of the case also shows that the petitioner No.1 having excelled in his job was given certificates of appreciation and was commanding more respect than the deceased, due to which he felt depressed and felt that he was not receiving the cooperation that he wanted as he belonged to a backward caste. From his utterances when the three teachers went to give him his salary also, it appears that his grievance is that they were not according him the respect which was due to him and were not extending due cooperation. However, insofar as the grievance of non- cooperation is concerned, that is a general complaint against the teachers of the school as a whole and not against the petitioner No.1 alone. The allegation is that because the teachers were with the petitioner No.1, they were not cooperating with him.

16.Insofar as the petitioner No.2 – Sarpanch is concerned, the grievance is that he was ridiculing him during the school hours and that he was asking him to take a transfer as he did not want a village person to be the headmaster of the school. SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT Similar is the allegation against the respondent No.3 who is running a fair price shop in the village and has nothing to do with the administration of the school.

17.From the material on record, it is apparent that the deceased was not attending the school since 14.11.2003 and lastly on

12.12.2003, he had given his brother an authority letter to collect his salary on his behalf, which was not given by the in- charge headmaster. Instead, three teachers, including the petitioner No.1 came to the residence of the deceased to hand over the salary as well as to inquire about his health, whereupon there was a discussion between him and the petitioner No.1 regarding lack of cooperation alleged by him. Thereafter, on 15.12.2003, the deceased committed suicide.

18.The question that arises for consideration is whether the case falls within the ambit of abetment as contemplated under section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC which makes provision for abetment of a thing, reads thus : “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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT 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, willfully 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

19.Thus, for the purpose of falling within the ambit of section 107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted the doing of a thing, firstly, if he instigates any person to do that thing; secondly, if he 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; and thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

20.The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has observed that 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. In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Supreme Court had cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT 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. The court held that 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. The Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 610, observed that the question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self- respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.

21.Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above legal principles, the record of the case shows that the deceased was working as a school teacher in the school since 1983 and the petitioner No.1 was working as a school teacher SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT in the said school since 1986. Insofar as the allegations of harassment are concerned, the same are confined only to the last six months prior to commission of suicide by the deceased. It may be noted that right from the inception, that is, since the deceased joined service as a teacher in the village school till six month prior to the date of the incident, there is no allegation as regards the deceased being subjected to any harassment, either mental or physical, the ground that he belonged to a backward caste. The general behavioural pattern of a society intolerant to backward classes is that, the same would be reflected in their attitude in general, right from the inception. Thus, if the petitioners were averse to the class to which the deceased belonged, or had any objection to his being the head master on account of his caste, the same would have been reflected in their attitude right from the inception. Nonetheless, examining the allegations against the petitioners on merits, the accusations against the petitioners are that they were mentally harassing the deceased by ridiculing him during the school hours and that they were asking him to take a transfer and go away from the school. The question that, therefore, arises is as to whether even if the said allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, whether the same would fall within the ambit of section 107 IPC, so as to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC.

22.As is apparent from the record, the deceased appears to have been suffering from depression for some time and was not attending the school since 14.11.2003. He did not even take part in the Gram Sabha organized by the Government on

20.11.2003, whereupon the Taluka Development Officer had called for his explanation. In response to which he had stated SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT that he was not well. The statements of other witnesses also disclose that he had gone on leave stating that he was not keeping good health. It appears that on account of the petitioner No.1 outshining him and getting cooperation from the teachers, the deceased did not like going to the school and had also stated to the witnesses that he would not resume duties at the said school and that he would join service only after he takes a transfer. Thus, the facts on record reveal that the deceased on account of the alleged harassment at the hands of the petitioners, had decided to join service only after taking a transfer. He has therefore stopped attending the school since 14.11.2003. Thus, after 14.11.2003, there was no occasion for the petitioners to subject the deceased to harassment, nor is it the case of the first informant that any harassment was caused thereafter. As noted hereinabove, the deceased committed suicide on 15.12.2003, that is after a period of one month thereafter. The only intervening event took place was on 13.12.2003 when the deceased asked the first informant to go to the school and get his salary with an authority letter but the in-charge head mistress did not hand over the salary of the first informant. However, immediately thereafter she along with the petitioner No.1 and another teacher had gone to the residence of the first informant to personally hand over the salary to the deceased at which point of time there was an argument between the petitioner No.1 and the deceased. However, from the nature of the discussion between them as stated in the first information report, nothing provocative had been stated by the petitioner No.1 so as to instigate the deceased commit suicide. Thus, on the day when the deceased committed suicide there was no immediate provocation on the part of the petitioners, which can be said to SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, there was no proximity between the commission of suicide and the alleged harassment caused to the deceased.

23.The Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2010 (3) GLH 270, has held that insofar as section 306 IPC is concerned, merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. In the present case, it is true that the petitioner No.1 is not a superior officer of the deceased, however, the petitioner No.2 is the Sarpanch of the village and it is in that capacity that he appears to be involved in the activities of the school. Moreover, merely because the petitioner No.1 is not a superior officer, it cannot be said that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court would not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, it is apparent that the deceased was nursing a grudge against the petitioner No.1 as he was more popular with the teachers of the school, and the deceased felt aggrieved by the fact that he was not being accorded due respect by the teachers of the school. Under the circumstances, the deceased may be honestly feeling that he was wronged, however, that still would not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under section 306 IPC. Besides, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner No.1 of having asked the deceased to take a transfer. The allegation is that as the petitioner No.1 is used to sit with the Sarpanch of the village and the Manager of the Cooperative Society, they used to ask him to take a transfer. SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT

24.Taking the allegations made in the first information report and the suicide note at face value and accepting them to be true, what is alleged is that the deceased was subjected to mental harassment and asked to take a transfer by the petitioners No.2 and 3 by saying that a village teacher was not the appropriate person to be a head master. Thus, even according to the deceased and the first informant the intention of the petitioners was to instigate the deceased to take a transfer. There is not even a whisper that it was the intention of the petitioners to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. As noted hereinabove, on account of the alleged harassment the deceased had stopped attending service and going to the school and had decided not to join the village school and join service after he got a transfer. Thus, at best the petitioners No.2 and 3 can be stated to have goaded the deceased to stop discharging his duties at the school and to get a transfer; however, the same cannot be equated with instigation to commit suicide. Insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, except that it is the case of the first informant that the petitioners No.2 and 3 were harassing the deceased so as to enable the petitioner No.1 to become the head master, there is no allegation of any harassment qua him. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (supra) 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 SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. In the present case, on the allegations made in the first information report/suicide note one would not expect a similarly circumstanced individual in society to commit suicide under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be charged with the offence of abetment of suicide. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self- respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self. Adverting to the facts of the present case, if one considers the contents of the suicide note, it is apparent that the deceased was hypersensitive and reacted strongly to the situation on account of the personal meaning he has attached to the conduct of petitioners, which in the normal course would not induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide. The present case is not one where the accused had by their acts of 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 instigation may have been inferred. On the allegations made in the suicide note, it cannot SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT be said that the accused had created such a situation whereby the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide, under the circumstances the ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC are clearly not spelt out. In the aforesaid premises, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting invocation of the powers under section 482 of the Code

25.The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A. P., (2008) 2 SCC 403 on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 does not carry the case of the respondents any further, inasmuch as, what has been held therein is that the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to the accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. Thus, the said decision does not lay down any proposition of law that even if on the allegations made in the first information report no offence as alleged is spelt out, the court should not exercise powers under section 482 of the Code.

26.For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first information report dated

20.12.2003 registered vide Sojitra Police Station I – C. R. No. 99/2003, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, Sessions Case No.69 of 2005 as well as the Charge framed on SCR.A/1161/2006 JUDGMENT

22.11.2005, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. parmar* [HARSHA DEVANI, J.]