Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 597 (UTT)

DHANESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE

2014-12-17

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, a final report was submitted against the applicant. Said final report was rejected by learned Magistrate keeping in view the contents of suicide note and what is why the applicants were summoned to face the trial for the said offence. This Court was taken through the contents of FIR, as also the suicide note by learned counsel for the parties. 2. Whereas learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that prima facie case against the applicants was made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that there is no evidence of abetment so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 3. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the applicant 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. 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.” 4. 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. 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. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986* has observed 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. 6. In the instant case, applicants were held responsible for the suicidal death of Mukesh Kapoor, who was married to Vishakha about 3-4 months ago of the incident. It was stated in the FIR that Vishakha was called to her parental home on some pretext, as a consequence of which, Mukesh used to remain perturbed. Vishakha was also aborted without the consent of her husband (Mukesh) and due to this reason, Mukesh committed suicide. Suicide note was found from the purse of Mukesh, who has held the applicants responsible for his suicide. Mukesh, in his suicide note, has said that he was being compelled by the applicants to commit suicide. 7. Even if the entire allegations levelled against the applicants in the FIR as well as the suicide note are presumed to be true, foundation of criminal offence is not laid against the applicants. 8. Where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 9. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 9. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. As a consequence thereof, summoning order dated 23.01.2014, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 306 of 2014 (Misc. Case no. 104 / 2009), State vs Dhanesh Sharma and others, under Section 506 of IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby set aside and quashed.