Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 280 (PNJ)

Puran Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-13

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Petitioners were charged for an offence under Sec.306 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (ipc for short) in FIR No.645 dated 19.11.2008 registered at Police Station City Jind. Vide impugned judgment dated 2.5.2009, charge was directed to be framed against the petitioners under sections 306/34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge,jind. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed the present revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution, as per FIR,as reproduced in para 2 of the grounds of revision, reads as under:- ""statement OF RAMESH SON OF SHRI babu LAL SHARMA RESIDENT OF RAMBIR COLONY, AGED 45 YEARS. 3 It is submitted that I am residing on the above address. I am an agriculturist. I had two sons. Name of the elder is Narender and name of the younger son was Anoop Singh, who was working in Sahara Company. Near to our house is the house of Puran Rajput and his maternal grand daughter Kanchan lives with him. There was friendship of my son Anoop with Kanchan and the family of Kanchan was annoyed on this. Yesterday i. e. on 18.11.2008, Puran the maternal grandfather of Kanchan, told Kanchan for marrying her at some other place, on account of which Kanchan was not happy and feeling annoyed had gone to her relations. On this, Puran, the maternal grand father of Kanchan and her mausi and other family members made allegations against Anoop Singh. Today again, maternal uncle Shyam Singh and maternal grandfather Puran Singh and mausi Santosh, all the three rebuked Anoop Singh in the panchyat that we will not marry Kanchan with you because Anoop Singh does not belong to our biradari (Community) and Shyam rebuked Anoop Singh that we will teach a lesson for having love affairs with the girl of our family. My son Anoop Singh, today at about 2.00 PM at my house took sulphas (poisonous) tablets under this pressure and when Anoop Singh started vomiting, I asked as to why he is vomiting. My son Anoop Singh told me that Shyam Singh maternal uncle of kanchan, maternal grandfather Puran Singh and Mausi Santosh hae compelled me to commit suicide and for that reason I have taken poisonous tablets. My son Anoop Singh told me that Shyam Singh maternal uncle of kanchan, maternal grandfather Puran Singh and Mausi Santosh hae compelled me to commit suicide and for that reason I have taken poisonous tablets. Then, I along with Ravinder son of Criminal Revision No.1299 of 2009 3 Mauji Ram, caste Jat, resident of Julani, took my son Anoop Singh to Dalamwala Hospital for treatment on motorcycle. When Anoop Singh was admitted by the doctor for treatment and on making a search, no slip (parchi) was found. My son Anoop died in the hospital. My son committed suicide under pressure. Statement has been heard, which is correct. Action be taken against above mentioned persons. Sd/-. Ramesh Sharma. . . " After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Sec.306 ipc reads as under:- "306. Abetment of suicide-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine" Sec.107 IPC reads as under:- "107abetment 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 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. " 4 It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- Criminal revision No.1299 of 2009 4 "the following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec.482,cr. " 4 It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- Criminal revision No.1299 of 2009 4 "the following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec.482,cr. P. C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec.156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155 (2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer Criminal Revision No.1299 of 2009 5 without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Sec.155 (2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. " 5. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are criminal Revision No.1299 of 2009 6 that they had declined to marry Kanchan with Anoop Singh. Anoop Singh took sulphas tablets due to this reason and ,ultimately, died. To constitute an offence under Sec.306 IPC, the instigation by a person has to be established which forced the victim to commit suicide. In the present case, petitioners did not want to marry Kanchan with anoop. The reason in this regard could be any. Petitioner No.1 is the maternal grand father of Kanchan, whereas, petitioners No.2 and 3 are maternal uncles of Kanchan. They being elders of Kanchan, were concerned for the welfare of kanchan. Mere objection to the marriage between Kanchan and Anoop Singh by the petitioners would not make out a case for abetment of the suicide by Anoop singh. 6. There is no doubt that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be done only in exceptional cases and where there is prima facie material trial was to be held. But on the peculiar facts of the case highlighted above, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently,This petition is allowed. But on the peculiar facts of the case highlighted above, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently,This petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.2009 whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioners is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are discharged.