High Court
Legal Reasoning
42488.2022APPLN.odtthat he would be offered employment, if he donates his property to thesociety of the applicant. Relying on the promise, the deceased donatedhis land to the society of applicant in the year 2006 itself. However, theapplicant did not give employment to the deceased and his wife aspromised by him causing immense financial hardship to the deceasedthereby forcing him to take drastic action of committing suicide. They,therefore, submit that the F.I.R. and criminal prosecution should not bequashed having regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R., suicidenote and other material forming part of the charge-sheet.7.Perusal of the charge-sheet prima facie demonstrates thatthe deceased had indeed donated his land to Jyotiba Phule Seva Trust,Nanded on 13.11.2006 vide a registered document titled as “Dan Patra”i.e. Gift Deed. The applicant is a Secretary of the said Society. His nameis mentioned in the said document dated 13.11.2006 and he hasexecuted the said document on behalf of the society - Jyotiba PhuleSeva Trust. It is really unfortunate that the applicant has takenagricultural land of a person making promise to offer an employmentand then resiled from his promise. Although, we find that the said act ishighly deplorable, the issue which falls for our consideration is as towhether it is enough and sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 306of the I.P.C. It is well settled that any act howsoever unethical orundesirable or deplorable will not constitute any crime unless the act 52488.2022APPLN.odtfalls within four corners of provisions of law defining the offence. Apenal provision defining offence is required to be interpreted strictly.With this backdrop of facts and legal principles, we proceed to dealwith the matter.8.As noted above, there is substance in the allegation thatthe applicant has obtained gift of immovable property belonging to thedeceased for his society. It is clearly stated that the property wasdonated only on the promise that the applicant would grantemployment to the deceased and his wife. It is also clearly stated thatthe applicant did not offer any employment to the deceased or his wifeas promised. We are however of the opinion that all these allegationseven if assumed to be true will not make out essential ingredients ofSection 306 of the I.P.C. The failure to keep his promise would notamount to instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. It does notappear that the applicant had any mens rea of causing suicidal death ofthe deceased. We may also mention that the failure to keep promisedoes not have any proximity with the date of unfortunate occurrence ofsuicidal death of deceased. The gift deed is dated 13.11.2006. It isobvious that promise to offer employment was made prior to that. Thetragic incident has occurred on 16.09.2021. There is a time lag of about15 years in between. 62488.2022APPLN.odt9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of UdeSingh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 as under :-“16.……. In the case of suicide, mere allegation ofharassment of the deceased by another person wouldnot suffice unless there be such action on the part of theaccused which compels the person to commit suicide;and such an offending action ought to be proximate tothe time of occurrence. ……” 10.Similar view is taken in the matter of Amalendu Pal Vs.State of W.B. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 as under :- “12.…. Merely on the allegation of harassmentwithout there being any positive action proximate tothe time of occurrence on the part of the accused whichled or compelled the person to commit suicide,conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is notsustainable.” 11.Similar view is taken in the matter of Rajesh Vs. State ofHaryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359 as under :- “9.Conviction under Section 306 IPC is notsustainable on the allegation of harassment withoutthere being any positive action proximate to the time ofoccurrence on the part of the accused, which led orcompelled the person to commit suicide. …..” 72488.2022APPLN.odt12.In these judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearlylaid down that the alleged wrongful act must have proximity with theact of suicide. Thus, mere harassment without any positive act on thepart of the accused in proximity with the time of suicide will not makeout a case of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of theI.P.C.13.Apart from the fact that proximity is clearly not establishedin the present case, we also find that means rea to cause abetment ofsuicide is also not established in the present case. Mens rea is anessential element of the offence punishable under Section 306 of theIPC. The act of deceased howsoever wrong it may be will not by itselfbe sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC unlessthe accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commitsuicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified legal position in thisregard in the matter of M. Arjunan Vs. State reported in (2019) 3 SCC315 in paragraph 7 as under :-“7.The essential ingredients of the offence underSection 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intentionof the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceasedto commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,insulting the deceased by using abusive language willnot, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There 82488.2022APPLN.odtshould be evidence capable of suggesting that theaccused intended by such act to instigate the deceasedto commit suicide. Unless the ingredients ofinstigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied theaccused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 14.Similar view is taken in the matter of Gurcharan Singh Vs.State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200 as under :- “15.As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.To prove the offence of abetment, as specified underSection 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit aparticular crime must be visible, to determine theculpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to besomething on record to establish or show that theappellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtheranceof that state of mind, abetted the suicide of thedeceased.” 15.We may also refer to judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427. The Hon’bleSupreme Court has dealt with a catena of decisions dealing withessential ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide. A F.I.R. waslodged against appellant in the said matter for offence under Section306 of the IPC. The allegations in the F.I.R were that the husband of theinformant was running a company doing business of interior designing,engineering consultancy and architecture. According to the informant, 92488.2022APPLN.odtwife of the deceased the appellant had not made payment for the workdone by company of her husband (deceased) for a period of over twoyears resulting in financial pressure on the deceased. It was also allegedthat the deceased husband had visited the office of appellant on severaloccasions making demand of payment of money. He had left a suicidenote mentioning that the persons named in the said note were notpaying legitimate dues of his company. The appellant hadunsuccessfully challenged the F.I.R. before the High Court. Theappellant then carried the order passed by the High Court to theHon’ble Supreme Court. In this backdrop of facts, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has held as under :-“62.…. Prima facie, on the application of the testwhich has been laid down by this Court in a consistentline of authority which has been noted above, it cannotbe said that the appellant was guilty of having abettedthe suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.These observations, we must note, are prima facie atthis stage since the High Court is still to take up thepetition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Courtin failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to makea prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functionsand jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section482 CrPC. The High Court recited the legal positionthat the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has tobe exercised sparingly. These words, however, are notmeaningless incantations, but have to be assessed withreference to the contents of the particular FIR before 102488.2022APPLN.odtthe High Court. If the High Court were to carry out aprima facie evaluation, it would have been impossiblefor it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR andthe provisions of Section 306 IPC. The failure of theHigh Court to do so has led it to adopting a positionwhere it left the appellant to pursue his remedies forregular bail under Section 439. The High Court wasclearly in error in failing to perform a duty which isentrusted to it while evaluating a petition underSection 482 albeit at the interim stage.” 16.It may be mentioned that the aforesaid judgment waspertaining to grant of bail and not quashing of F.I.R. However, legalprinciples with respect to essential ingredients of an offence punishableunder Section 306 of IPC have been reiterated in the said judgment byfollowing several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court includingthe judgments, we have referred to above.17.In the facts of the present case undisputedly the land wasgifted by the deceased on a representation that employment will beoffered on 13.11.2006 and he has committed suicide on account offailure on the part of the applicant to grant employment as promisedafter a period of around 15 years on 16.09.2021. There is obviously noproximity between the wrongful act and suicide committed by thedeceased. Likewise, there is nothing to interfere that the applicant did 112488.2022APPLN.odtnot offer employment as promised by him with an intention that thedeceased should commit suicide. The undisputed facts of the casemiserably failed to establish any mens rea. The continuation of criminalprosecution against the applicant will, therefore, serve no purpose.Since the ingredients of offence of abetment to commit suicide are notmade out, the criminal prosecution against the applicant deserves to bequashed. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER(i)The application is allowed. (ii)F.I.R. No.0213/2021 dated 16.09.2021 registered with PoliceStation, Palam, Dist.Parbhani, for offence punishable under Section 306of the Indian Penal Code, Charge-Sheet No.95/2022 dated 28.02.2022and Sessions Case No.80/2022 pending on the file of learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed are hereby quashed againstapplicant - Vitthal Sambhajirao Gutte. [ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/
Arguments
12488.2022APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2488 OF 2022 Vitthal Sambhajirao Gutte Age : 69 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Laxmi Narayan Apartment, Near Aadhar Hospital, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. ..APPLICANT-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra2.Swati Narayan PawarAge : 33 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o Shaikh Rajur, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicant: Mr. Joydeep Chatterji APP for Respondent- State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni Advocates for respondent No.2 : Mr. Girish K. Naik Thigle …CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2025024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The present application is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying to quash F.I.R.No.0213/2021 dated 16.09.2021 registered with Police Station, Palam,Dist.Parbhani, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code (I.P.C.). The F.I.R. is lodged in relation to suicidal death ofone Narayan Pawar on 16.09.2021. The informant respondent No.2 iswidow of the deceased. 22488.2022APPLN.odt2.The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicant was a officebearer of a society, which intended to start a residential school for blindand deaf and dumb students. The applicant asked the deceased todonate his land for the purpose of construction of school building andhostel on an assurance that he would offer job to the deceased and hiswife (respondent No.2) as peon and a cook, respectively. RespondentNo.2 states that the deceased accordingly gave land admeasuring oneand half acres in Gut No.149/1 at Shekhrajur Shivar to the applicant,however, the applicant resiled from his word and did not provideemployment to the deceased and his wife as promised. RespondentNo.2 states that she has two children from wedlock with the deceased.The family was facing serious financial crisis and hardship as aconsequence of which the deceased was forced to commit suicide. TheF.I.R. refers to suicide note, which was found on the person of thedeceased. English translation of the suicide note reads as under :-“I, Narayan Kishanrao Pawar, am committing suicidebecause Vitthal Sambhaji Gutte, who runs a society, had takenmy land admeasuring one and half acres in the year 2006, onthe promise that he would offer me employment. However,although he took my land, he did not provide employment. Iam facing starvation. Lastly, I request to the administration toreturn this land back to my family. Sd/- Narayan Kishanrao Pawar” 32488.2022APPLN.odt3.The complainant has stated that the suicide note is inhandwriting of her husband/deceased.4.On the basis of the said F.I.R., respondent No.1 conductedinvestigation in the matter and has filed charge-sheet under Section173 of the Cr.P.C., vide Final Report No.95/2022 on 28.02.2022 beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palam and same came to beregistered as Regular Criminal Case No. 55/2022. The learnedMagistrate has thereafter committed the case to the learned SessionsCourt and accordingly, the case is pending in the Court of learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, vide Sessions Case No.80/2022.5.Learned counsel Shri Joydeep Chatterji for the applicantwould contend that the allegations in the F.I.R. and the suicide note aregrossly inadequate to remotely make out any ingredients of the offenceof abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He,therefore, states that the prosecution can not be sustained and deservesto be quashed.6.As against this, Shri G.A. Kulkarni, learned APP appearingfor respondent No.1 and Advocate Shri Girish Naik appearing forrespondent No.2 would contend that the deceased was falsely promised