Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 124 (UTT)

Vivek @ Sachin Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-02-24

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 27.11.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1238 of 2019, State vs. Jyoti & others, for the offence under Sections 306 and 506 IPC , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short the case). 2. The case is based on an FIR lodged on 9th August 2019, by respondent no.2 against the petitioner and others, under Sections 306 and 506 IPC. According to it, deceased Dharmendra, son of respondent no.2 was married with Jyoti, the daughter of Dinesh on 4th May, 2014. After the marriage, the deceased Dharnmendra was pressurized and mentally tortured to stay away from his parents. On 02.07.2019, deceased Dharmendra was called by his in-laws, since thereafter, he was staying with them. Petitioner is his brother-in-law. Deceased Dharmendra had also disclosed it to the respondent no.2 that his in-laws had taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from him, but did not return it. When requested, they further tortured him. On 2nd August, 2019, it was informed that Dharmendra died. Respondent no.2 reached his in-laws house, where he found that the deceased Dharmendra had recorded a suicide note on his leg & thigh and held his wife, her brothers, maternal uncles and others responsible for his death. 3. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 306 and 506 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except two named persons in the FIR, namely, petitioner Bachan Singh and Virju, entire family have been implicated; the FIR is delayed. It is argued that since the petitioner is a family member, he has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned counsel for the State has placed before the Court the photographs of the writings on the body of the deceased. He further submits that it is a fair investigation. Two named accused have been exonerated as their names in the crime were not found true. It is also argued that there is evidence against the petitioner in the case. 6. Prima facie, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. The deceased Dharmendra has written on his body that his wife, her family members and others are responsible for his death. It is also argued that there is evidence against the petitioner in the case. 6. Prima facie, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. The deceased Dharmendra has written on his body that his wife, her family members and others are responsible for his death. He was pressurized and tortured by his in-laws. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for abatement of suicide, which reads as hereunder: '306. Abetment of suicide.- If any persons 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 also be liable to fine.' 7. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC . According to it, 'a person abates the doing of a thing, who instigates to any person to do that thing; or.' 8. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , this provision has further been interpreted by Honble Supreme Court. It was inter alia held that 'Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.' 9. As stated, in the instant case, the FIR, prima facie discloses commission of cognizance offence. After the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner and others. Truthfulness of the averments in the FIR or of suicide note are the subject matter of trial. It cannot be decided in these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that directions may be issued that the bail application of the petitioner be considered on the same day, when he surrenders before the court concerned. 11. The petition is dismissed. 12. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and apply for his bail, the same may be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.