Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 690 (UTT)

Mahesh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-10-29

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the chargesheet no.355/2008 and summoning order dated 01.12.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.2146 of 2008 titled as State vs. Mahesh Yadav under Section 306 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court. 2. An FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant on 07.04.2008 at R.O.P. ITI Kashipur, which was registered as case crime no.178/2005 under Section 306 IPC. After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offence. Cognizance was taken on the said chargesheet and accused applicant was summoned to face the trial for the aforesaid offence, vide order dated 01.12.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant. 3. A perusal of the first information report shows that Assistant Sub-Inspector Yaadram Singh (complainant) informed the police that he saw a dead body lying near Dronsagar and there was a suicide note lying with the dead person. In the suicide note, it was mentioned that someone was harassing the deceased. It was further mentioned in the suicide note that the deceased borrowed some money from a person and he failed to repay the same. It was further alleged in the suicide note that Mahesh Yadav (present applicant) was the person from whom he borrowed money. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that demanding money from a debtor cannot be said to be an abetment to commit suicide. It is also contended that even if the contents of the first information report are taken to be true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the accused-applicant. 5. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Mohan vs. State with Velmurugan & another vs. State 2011 AIR SCW 1601, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as below: “45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 46. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon Mahendra Singh & another vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659 and S. S. Chhena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Mahendra Singh’s case (supra), Netai Dutta’s case (supra) and Sohan Raj Shrama vs. State of Haryana 2008 AIR SCW 3202 that mere cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken to be an act of abetting suicide and the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, in such cases, are not made out. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 held that mere torture by the accused and subsequent commission of suicide by the victim would not amount to an abetment or instigation to commit suicide. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 held that when no ingredients of any offence are prima facie made out against the applicant (s), the Court should intervene in exercise of it’s inherent jurisdiction. 8. In V.P. Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosives Limited & others (2010) 10 SCC 361 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & another (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless. 9. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & another (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless. 9. On a careful perusal of the material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court can safely arrive at a conclusion that the applicant is not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. The criminal courts are having inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice. 10. Even a bare reading of the FIR/suicide note does not constitute any offence against the present accused-applicant. When factual foundation of any offence is not made out against the accused-applicant, then this Court should intervene in exercise of it’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of the court. 11. In view of the above settled position of law, the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Chargesheet no.355/2008, summoning order dated 01.12.2008 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2146 of 2008 titled as State vs. Mahesh Yadav under Section 306 IPC pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed.