State of Uttarakhand and Anr v. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been instituted by the Applicant, Dr. Anil Kumar Gautam, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 20.12.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 20 of 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Pauri Garhwal, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also quashing of the summoning order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri in Criminal Case No. 336 of 2024, along with all consequential proceedings.

The FIR in question was lodged on 26.05.2023 by Respondent No. 2, Sandeep Bhatt, alleging that his wife, late Dr. Manisha Bhatt, Assistant Professor the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, committed suicide due to harassment meted Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 1 Ashish Naithani J. out to her by the Applicant, who was then the Head of the Department, and by the Director of the Institute.

3. The allegations in the FIR are broadly two-fold: (i) That the deceased was mentally harassed in the matter of sanction of maternity leave, which, according complainant, was initially withheld; and (ii) (ii) That her application for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was not forwarded, thereby obstructing her career progression.

4. The FIR further states that the deceased was pregnant, that her newborn child died on 07.05.2023, and that she was denied promotion due to the deliberate acts of the Applicant, which, cumulatively, drove her to take her own life.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 20.12.2023 against the Applicant under Section 306 IPC, alleging that the Applicant had issued notices to the deceased, refrained from forwarding her documents for promotion under the CAS, and thereby harassed her to the extent that she committed suicide. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the Applicant on 03.04.2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that the FIR is based on false, frivolous, and motivated allegations. It is submitted that the maternity leave of Dr. Manisha Bhatt was duly sanctioned from

14.11.2022 to 11.05.2023, with the formal office order issued on

15.05.2023, and that she was paid her regular salary during the period. Before the commencement of maternity leave, she was allowed to utilise her casual leave balance to prevent it from lapsing. Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. It is urged that the Applicant never refused or delayed sanction of maternity leave, and the deceased resumed duties on 12.05.2023, marking attendance both in the biometric system and in the manual register until 25.05.2023. Considering her personal loss, no departmental workload was assigned to her during that semester.

8. As regards the allegation of obstruction in promotion, Learned Counsel submits that under the CAS, a faculty member is required to submit a detailed application with supporting records to the Department for verification before forwarding to the Director. No such application was submitted by the deceased at any time before the extended deadline of 31.07.2023, and therefore, the question of forwarding or withholding it did not arise.

9. It is further argued that statements of departmental colleagues, clerical staff, and other Institute employees recorded under Section 161 CrPC uniformly deny any instigation, dispute, or harassment by the Applicant. In particular, the complainant’s own statement records that the death of the deceased’s seven-month-old child due to choking was a major reason for her mental distress.

10. Learned Counsel submits that the essential ingredients of “abetment” under Section 107 IPC, instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, are wholly absent in this case. It is emphasised that there is no material to suggest any active role, provocation, or direct involvement by the Applicant in causing the deceased to commit suicide.

11. Learned Counsel for the State, assisted by Counsel for the Informant, opposes the application. It is argued that the FIR contains specific allegations that the Applicant deliberately delayed the sanction Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 3 Ashish Naithani J. of maternity leave and obstructed the deceased’s promotion under the CAS, thereby causing mental harassment.

12. It is submitted that the charge sheet is supported by material collected during investigation, including witness statements, and that whether the conduct of the Applicant amounts to “abetment” under Section 306 IPC is a matter to be determined at trial upon appreciation of evidence. It is urged that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The offence alleged against the Applicant is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which relates to abetment of suicide. The definition of “abetment” is contained in Section 107 IPC, which contemplates three distinct forms (i) instigation of a person to do an act, (ii) engaging with one or more persons in a conspiracy to do an act followed by an act or omission in pursuance thereof, and (iii) intentionally aiding a person to do an act by any act or illegal omission.

15. For the offence under Section 306 IPC to be made out, there must be prima facie material to show that the accused had played an active role in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide, and that such act was done with the intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, in the absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional aid, do not satisfy the statutory requirement.

16. In the present case, the record indicates that maternity leave was sanctioned from 14.11.2022 to 11.05.2023, followed by a formal order on 15.05.2023, and the deceased resumed duties on 12.05.2023. Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 4 Ashish Naithani J.

17. With respect to the allegation regarding promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, the material shows that no formal application was submitted by the deceased for consideration before the extended deadline of 31.07.2023. In the absence of such an application, the question of forwarding or withholding it from the Director’s office did not arise.

18. The statements of departmental colleagues, clerical staff, and other employees recorded under Section 161 CrPC do not attribute any act of instigation, intentional aid, or conspiracy to the Applicant. Notably, the complainant’s own statement acknowledges that the death of the deceased’s infant daughter due to choking was a major cause of her distress.

19. Taking the allegations in the FIR and the material in the charge sheet at their face value, the essential ingredients of “abetment” under Section 107 IPC are not disclosed. There is no material to suggest that the Applicant instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide.

20. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and the ends of justice warrants interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. ORDER The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The charge sheet dated 20.12.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 20 of 2023, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Kotwali, District Pauri Garhwal, the summoning order dated

03.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri in Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 5 Ashish Naithani J. Criminal Case No. 336 of 2024, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:20.08.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 749 of 2024, Anil Kumar Gautam Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 6 Ashish Naithani J.