Bobby @ Shyam Sunder And Another v. State Of Haryana
!"!
#$%&'&%
() ) &*&& ) + )) ) ,
&&&&& ) $- . & )) .
Present:
Mr. Sanjiv Sheorana, Advocate with Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the complainant.
**** ) ./ 1.
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR No.26 dated 06.02.2021, Annexure P11, under Section 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, and all its subsequent proceedings. 2.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as no offence is made out against them. It is further contended that the petitioners never instigated the deceased Ravinder nor is there attribution of any role to them. The petitioners are the Directors of JaiMaa Ambay Nidhi Limited Company which is registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and is advancing
financial loans on interest to the desirous persons and the loan amount is credited into the bank account of the loanee. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners were calling the deceased in their office and in this way, they were harassing the deceased due to which the deceased consume poison. However, there is no reason disclosed by the deceased or complainant for calling the petitioners to their office. Since there is no specific instigation alleged against them because calling a person in the office does not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P14 which is a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court being Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5598 of 2020) titled as
!"
#
$"
!% to contend that in the present case the allegation against the accused was that he assigned more and more official work to the deceased due to which he committed suicide. The Hon'ble Court observed that assigning more and more work does not constitute a criminal guilt and accordingly, FIR was quashed. Therefore, the impugned FIR, Annexure P11, is liable to be quashed alongwith all its subsequent proceedings. 4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while referring the reply filed on behalf of the State, has submitted that FIR has been registered after recording the statement of deceased - Ravinder Kumar s/o Narinder, after he was declared as fit to make statement wherein he has stated that Bobby Financer and Vipin were harassing him after calling him in the office of Workship, so he took poison. On 06.02.2021, information was received that Ravinder Kumar has died and then FIR No.26 under Section 306/34 IPC came to be registered on 06.02.2021. As such, there are
specific allegations against the petitioners in the statement of the deceased. Moreover, during the course of investigation, after being arrested on 24.02.2021 and interrogated, the petitioners/accused admitted their offence and disclosed that they used to lend money on high rate of interest. They also admitted that they advanced loan of Rs.4 lacs on interest @ 15% and out of said amount, Ravinder returned some money but thereafter he started avoiding return of money and for that reason, he was used to be called in the office. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.
Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2, who has been impleaded as such, vide order dated 29.09.2021 passed in CRM1324001 2021, has contended on the basis of his reply that before death, deceased Ravinder had made a statement in Gaba Hospital, in the presence of Dr.Anshul Dhiman, to the effect that the petitioners were harassing him after calling him in their office and used to give beatings to him and due to causing harassment to him by the petitioners, he consumed poison. He further contends that deceased had taken loan of Rs.4.00 lacs from the petitioners on interest @ 15% and returned money of interest and thereafter, petitioners/accused started calling the deceased to their office due to which the deceased felt insulted and harassed and as such he committed suicide by consuming poison.
6.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 7.
Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it deems appropriate to notice the law laid down in the statute which is reproduced herein below:1 "
Section 306 IPC directs that whoever abets the commission of suicide ,shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, Therefore, the soul of section 306 is abetment which is explained under section 107 IPC which reads as follows:1 !
"
" "
# " "$ %"" " "
"
& " "$ '
" " " % (
"
" " " Section 107 IPC, clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section 306, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of section 107 is intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 8.
The Apex court in plethora of judgments rendered from time to time has laid down principles for entertaining a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, in cases where abetment to suicide is the offence alleged. The Apex court in & '
(& )
* +,&- ! .
!
$$ / /% has held as follows:1 ()'
& " "
*+
" ,
"
"
*+ ( "
*+ " " '
"
*+ (-'
! ( .*+
" " #
" '
( . *+ ( / *+ 0 " 1
'
( . *+
" ( .*+ 9.
To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.
10.
The word instigation has not been specifically defined by the statute but has been time and again interpreted by the Apex court in its various judgments. In, " 0' ) $ , !"
$$ 3!4 the Apex court has held that:1
!) """ & "23' 0 " "
"
"" 04 0 " '
" " " 0
" 11.
As Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making a person liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the 3 categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally act by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.
12.
Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide; it may be a case failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant.
13.
Thus, considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is no material to show that petitioners in any manner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Merely calling of the petitioners to the deceased at workplace regarding re1payment of money, would not signify that the petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 14.
In the light of above stated facts and after considering the spectrum of law over this issue, the court finds it appropriate to quash the case FIR No.26 dated 06.02.2021, Annexure P11, under Section 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, with all its subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and
final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., if any filed, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
15.
Ordered accordingly.
() .0 %&'&% &"6 7468 7468