High Court
Legal Reasoning
3 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 Penal Code. They would point out that one of the accused had alsoprayed for quashment and this Court in Criminal Writ Petition no. 156 of2018, by the order dated 04-02-2020 quashed the crime and thecriminal case to the extent of the co-accused.5.Learned advocates would submit that mere rejection ofleave applications would not constitute abetment. They would seek torely upon following decisions :-i) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another; (2010) 8SCC 628ii) Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke V. State of Maharashtra andanother; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 545iii) Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others Vs. State of Maharashtraand another; 2016 DGLS (Bom.) 445 and6.Per Contra, the learned APP and the learned advocate forthe respondent no. 2 would oppose the matters. They would submitthat there is voluminous evidence and even transcript of theconversation between the applicants and the deceased indicative ofthe manner and extent to which he was subjected to harassment.There is a suicide note expressly declaring that because of suchharassment by the applicant / petitioner, he was committing suicide.The extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not beexercised for quashing the crime. 4 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 7.We have carefully considered the rival submissions andperused the papers.8.True it is that the conversation of which transcript isavailable in the chargesheet and the suicide note left behind by thedeceased demonstrate that he was perceiving that he was beingharassed and was threatened of even suspension. He was grantedleave but subsequently it was cancelled and the deceased was fed upto such an extent that even he had disclosed his intention to end his lifeto his colleagues, a transcript of which conversation is also a part of thechargesheet.9.However, it is also trite that as laid down by the SupremeCourt in the aforementioned decisions, mens rea is an essentialingredient for constituting an offence of abetment to suicide punishableunder section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if all the allegationsare accepted including the statement in the suicide note, those wouldmerely demonstrate the perception of the deceased about the mannerin which he was harassed at the work place. However, that in itselfdoes not even indicate that the applicant / petitioner were harbouringsome mens rea to lead the deceased should commit suicide.10.Since it is a matter of suicide, as has been consistentlyobserved by the Supreme Court that it all depends upon the mentalcondition of the person who commits suicide. The level of tolerance of 5 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 every individual would vary. As can be gathered, even the informantand some of their colleagues were also annoyed by the manner inwhich the applicant / petitioner were treating them at the work place.However, it is only the deceased who could not bear it and took the laststep. His colleagues could sustain such treatment and did not find asimilar escape route. It is precisely for this reason, in our consideredview, there is no legal nexus between the suicide and the allegedharassment. In the absence of any material demonstrating / disclosingmens rea on the part of the applicant and the petitioner, in ourconsidered view, the alleged harassment though could be a reason forthe deceased to commit suicide would not constitute abetment asdefined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.11.Abetment as can be understood from section 107 of theIndian Penal Code, could be in the form of conspiracy, intentional aid orinstigation. Going by the allegations being attributed, the prosecutionis not intending to resort to the former two and is trying to establish thatthe alleged harassment would constitute abetment in the form ofinstigation. In our considered view, there being no mens rea deduciblefrom the material collected by the Investigating Officer, following theobservations in the matters of Madan Mohan Singh and VaijnathKondiba Khandke (supra) and Prabhat Kumar Mishra V. State ofU.P.; 2024 SCC OnLine, it would be an abuse of the process of law to 6 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 allow the prosecution against the applicant / petitioner to go on. Wehave no manner of doubt that it would be an exercise in futility.Applying the parameters laid down in the matter of State of HaryanaV/s Bhajan Lal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, both the matters deserve tobe allowed.12.Criminal application and the Criminal Writ Petition areallowed.13.Crime no. I-0099 of 2018 registered with Railway PoliceStation, Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under section 306,506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, chargesheet and the SessionsCase No. 359 of 2023 are quashed and set aside as against therespective applicant / petitioner.14.We quantify the fees of Ms. V.A. Shinde, learned advocatewhom we appointed to represent the respondent no. 2, at Rs.3000/-. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/
Arguments
1 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 917 OF 2020Shri Dharmendra S/o Ishwar Prasad Kumar.. Applicant Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Railway Police Station, Ahmednagar2] Jitendrakumar Hariram Meena.. RespondentsWITHCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2020Akhil Bashir Shaikh.. Applicant Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Ahmednagar Railway Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar2] Jitendrakumar Hariram Meena.. Respondents...Advocate for applicant : Mr. R.C. Bora h/f. Mr. R.R. Kakani (917/2020)Advocate for petitioner : Mr. R.S. Shinde h/f. Mr. D.B. hoke (600/2020)APP for the respondent – State : Mr. G.A. KulkarniAdvocate for respondent no. 2 : Ms. V.A. Shinde (917/2020) (Appointed)... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 6 MARCH 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard both the sides finally with their consent.2.By way of these separate application and writ petition, twoof the accused from the same crime being crime no. I-0099 of 2018registered with Railway Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offences 2 Cr. Appln. 917 / 2020 punishable under section 306, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code areseeking quashment of the crime, chargesheet and the Sessions CaseNo. 359 of 2023, by invoking the powers of this Court under section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of theConstitution of India.3.The respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR on the basis of whichthe crime has been registered inter alia alleging that the deceased washis colleague. Both of them were serving with the Indian Railways andwere posted at Ahmednagar as Gangmen. It is alleged that theapplicants were their superiors in the office. However, they hadpersistently harassed the deceased. Leaves were sanctioned to himbut used to be cancelled subsequently. Whenever he used to apply forleave, it was being refused. He was not granted leave even whenthere was a marriage of his sister. Leave was refused when his motherwas to undergo surgery. They had abused the deceased and fed upwith such constant harassment, the deceased committed suicide byjumping under a running train. It is then alleged that by persistentharassment, the applicants had abetted the suicide.4.The learned advocate for the applicant / petitioner wouldsubmit that accepting the allegations at their face value, no mens reacan be attributed to them for leading the deceased to end his life. It willnot constitute abetment within the meaning of section 107 of the Indian