Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 38 (JK)

Yashpal Singh v. State of J&K

2022-02-11

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No. 11 of 2013 dated 22.10.2013 registered with Police Station Purmandal for commission of offence under section 306 R.P.C. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Ratnuchak and has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned FIR, just because then J&K State Human Rights Commission, Jammu issued a notice to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 was married with one Manohar Lal and just after 20-25 days of the marriage, matrimonial dispute arose between them and thereafter, their relations became very strained because of differences in their temperament, choices and habits. The parents of respondent No. 2 requested the parents of Manohar Lal not to harass their daughter and number of meetings of the panchayats were also convened by the Panches of the concerned Halqas to resolve the matrimonial dispute between them, so much so that once MLC Noor Hussain was also involved for amicable settlement of the dispute between them but of no avail. The respondent No. 2 was beaten number of times by her husband and the matter was reported to the Police. She even filed application under section 488 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against her husband Manohar Lal and the same was compromised leading to withdrawal of the said application by her. But despite that the relationship between respondent No. 2 and Manohar Lal continued to be strained, as her husband, Manohar Lal used to beat her mercilessly and several times locked her inside the room. When the parents of respondent No. 2 realised that their efforts were continuously failing to settle the dispute between their daughter and her husband, they approached the petitioner, who was the Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Ratnuchak and the petitioner tried his best to settle the matrimonial dispute but all in vain. When the parents of respondent No. 2 realised that their efforts were continuously failing to settle the dispute between their daughter and her husband, they approached the petitioner, who was the Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Ratnuchak and the petitioner tried his best to settle the matrimonial dispute but all in vain. Later on, respondent No. 2 approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu with an application seeking directions to the In-charge Police Station Women Cell, Jammu to investigate the matter under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and register the case under sections 498-A, 323, 343 RPC on 03.08.2012 and the In-charge Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu called Manohar Lal in the Police Station and tried to settle the dispute and also directed both of them to bring their parents, Sarpanches and other respectable persons of their respective villages to the Police Station. The petitioner on the request of respondent No. 2 and her parents, being a Sarpanch accompanied them to Police Station Women Cell, Jammu where the Naib-Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Khara Madhana and other respectable persons on behalf of Manohar Lal were also present. A compromise was also executed between respondent No. 2 and Manohar Lal and as per the agreement, Manohar Lal agreed that he would not beat his wife, harass and would never stop her from visiting her parental house. It is further stated that on 29.04.2013, the petitioner was informed that respondent No. 2 had been badly beaten by her husband and the petitioner informed the Police Station about the matter. The Police went to the house of Manohar Lal, where the Police found that Pooja Rani was lying in an unconscious condition, whereas her husband was hanging with the ceiling fan in the room, which was locked by himself from inside. The Police entered the report and the inquest proceedings were initiated. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the father of the deceased Manohar Lal approached the then J&K State Human Rights Commission, Jammu, where he made certain allegations against Pooja Devi, her mother, petitioner and one Raju. Notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply before the Commission. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the father of the deceased Manohar Lal approached the then J&K State Human Rights Commission, Jammu, where he made certain allegations against Pooja Devi, her mother, petitioner and one Raju. Notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply before the Commission. It is also stated that before approaching the Commission, neither the deceased nor the father of the deceased made any allegations against the petitioner at any point of time and at one point of time, the deceased as well as his father had approached the petitioner for the amicable settlement and every time the petitioner tried his level best to settle the matrimonial dispute between Manohar Lal and respondent No. 2. The deceased was serving as a teacher in the Government school, whereas his wife Pooja Devi was only a higher Secondary pass out. The deceased was not happy with her qualifications and always expressed his unwillingness to marry her and their marriage was an outcome of the pressure of his parents otherwise he would have married some other girl having better qualification. 3. The petitioner has challenged the FIR on the following grounds: (a) That the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not even constitute any offence or make out any offence against the petitioner. (b) That the allegations in the FIR are absurd on the basis of which no prudent person can arrive at a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. (c) That the basis of FIR against the petitioner is based on notice issued by then J&K State Human Rights Commission where the case is pending adjudication. 4. The respondent No. 1 has filed the response, in which it is stated that on 29.04.2013 at about 20:30 hours, and information was received at Police Station, Purmandal through telephone that one person, namely, Manohar Lal (Teacher) S/o Gian Chand R/o Sumbli has hanged himself with the ceiling fan and has died. As the death of the deceased occurred under suspicious circumstances and to ascertain the actual cause of death, the inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated vide DDR No. 16 dated 29.04.2013. As the death of the deceased occurred under suspicious circumstances and to ascertain the actual cause of death, the inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated vide DDR No. 16 dated 29.04.2013. An enquiry of the same was taken up by Inspector Satish Kumar, then SHO of Police Station Purmandal, who along with police party from Police Station rushed to the spot and found that the door of the room of the deceased was locked from inside. Some locals including Thoru Ram, Khursheed Alam, Panch Ward No. 2 Sumbli, Nazir Hussain Naib Sarpanch and Krishan Lal Numberdar had already gathered there and in presence of these persons, SHO Police Station Purmandal forcibly opened the door and entered the room. They found that the dead body of Manohar Lal was hanging with the ceiling fan by an electric wire and his wife i.e. respondent No. 2 was found lying on the bed in an unconscious condition. Later she was shifted to be PHC Purmandal. SHO along with other Police personnel took the dead body of Manohar Lal into custody for completing the legal formalities, got conducted the photography through mobile phone and after thorough inspection of the dead body prepared the site plan, seized piece of electric wire, a wooden table, torn shirt, a mobile phone model Nokia 2610 and prepared the seizure memos. After conducting the post-mortem and completing all the legal formalities, the dead body was handed over to his legal heirs for the last rites. Later, SDPO Vijaypur conducted the enquiry and visited the spot again and made enquiry from the circumstantial witnesses and it has been found that the deceased was not residing in his parental house as he had made separate house and was residing there along with his wife. Soon after the marriage, some misunderstanding and conflicts arose between the couple, as a result of which the respondent No. 2 often stayed in her parental house. On the day of occurrence, there was a marriage ceremony in the house of Lekh Raj S/o Panjabu Ram R/o Sumbli, who was the relative of the deceased wherein the people of the whole village were attending the Barat. Manohar Lal and his wife i.e. respondent No. 2 were also ready to participate in the said marriage but later on they cancelled their programme because of unknown reasons. Manohar Lal and his wife i.e. respondent No. 2 were also ready to participate in the said marriage but later on they cancelled their programme because of unknown reasons. During the course of the enquiry, statements of other legal heirs were recorded under section 175 Cr.P.C. which revealed that deceased got married in the year 2008 but within the short period of their marriage, both husband and wife started arguing and fighting with each other and in the meanwhile a male baby was also born. As the respondent No. 2 belonged to urban area so it was hard for her to adjust herself in a small village that’s why she used to stay in her parental house most of the time. Thereafter her husband tried his level best with the help of panchayat and other respectable persons to get her back but all in vain. One day their baby was admitted at SMGS Hospital Jammu for treatment of jaundice, Manohar Lal visited the hospital to see his sick baby and when he tried to take the baby in his lap, Pooja Rani and her parents raised hue and cry and declared him as an abductor and beat him along with hospital security. Later Police enquired the matter and found that Manohar Lal was the real father of the baby and had the right to take the baby in his lap. After verifying, it has been found that the deceased was many times harassed and was fed up with his wife and her relatives who compelled him to leave his house and live in a rented accommodation at Bari Brahmana. As Manohar Lal was Government teacher by profession and was posted at his native village, even his monthly salary was also taken away by the respondent No. 2 and her parents. The respondent No. 2 did not have any sympathy or affection towards her husband i.e. Manohar Lal. During the questioning, respondent No. 2 stated that on the day of occurrence, her husband had beaten her after locking the room and she became unconscious. Later on, when she got up she found that her husband was hanging with the ceiling fan on the bed. She was also on the bed and she made a call from the phone of her husband to her mother. On seeing the dead body of her husband, she again became unconscious. Later on, when she got up she found that her husband was hanging with the ceiling fan on the bed. She was also on the bed and she made a call from the phone of her husband to her mother. On seeing the dead body of her husband, she again became unconscious. She also stated that after marriage their relations remained strained. The enquiry officer collected FSL/post-mortem report of deceased in which medical Officer opined that after performing an autopsy and corroborating it with the FSL report it was found that the person had died due to asphyxia because of hanging. Moreover, documents written by the deceased in Hindi language pertaining to harassment were also sent to FSL for comparison with the handwriting of the deceased and the report was also obtained. After considering the statements of the witnesses and the documents written by the deceased, complicity of the respondent No. 2, her parents, Sunil Kumar, Vikram Sarangal and the petitioner was found and accordingly inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were converted into formal case vide FIR No. 11/2013 under section 306 RPC. After the registration of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the offence has been proved against the above-mentioned persons, who presently are on bail. 5. The respondent No. 2 and 4 have also filed the response and the same is not material for the determination of the present controversy, as they also figure as accused in the above mentioned FIR. 6. Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no allegation in the FIR against the petitioner but despite that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only because of the reason that he intervened and tried to reconcile the matrimonial dispute between deceased and respondent No. 2, being the Sarpanch and resident of the same village where the petitioner No. 2 and her parents were residing. 7. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG argued that the deceased committed suicide because of the continuous harassment at the hands of respondent No. 2, her parents and other accused persons. 7. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG argued that the deceased committed suicide because of the continuous harassment at the hands of respondent No. 2, her parents and other accused persons. He further submitted that the deceased had narrated the details of harassment in his writings, the perusal of which would reveal that the deceased was fed up with his life because of the continuous harassment at the hands of respondent No. 2 and her associates. 8. Mr. P.S. Parmar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and 4 submitted that there is no evidence even against respondent No. 2 and 4 but they too have been unnecessarily implicated in the FIR. 9. Heard and perused the record including the CD file. 10. A perusal of the FIR and the response filed by the respondent No. 1 reveals that there was marital discord between the deceased Manohar Lal and his wife i.e. respondent No. 2. It is further evident that the respondent No. 2 was not willing to reside in the parental house of the deceased and she often used to reside in her parental home. It is further stated in the FIR that the respondent No. 2 approached the Women Cell at the instance of petitioner, her parents and one Raju. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the deceased was continuously harassed by the respondent No. 2, her parents and brother. So far as petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that the petitioner did any act that prompted the deceased to take extreme step of taking his own life. This is admitted fact that efforts were made by the members of the Panchayat for settling the marital discord between the deceased and respondent No. 2 and the petitioner participated in those efforts. Even the writings of the deceased do not carry any allegation against the petitioner and all the allegations in the writings of the deceased pertain to the respondent No. 2 and her parents. In order to make out an offence under section 306 RPC, there must be evidence on record that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The abetment has been defined by Section 107 of the RPC, which reads as under:- “107. In order to make out an offence under section 306 RPC, there must be evidence on record that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The abetment has been defined by Section 107 of the RPC, which reads as under:- “107. Abetment 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 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.” 11. An FIR can be registered for commission of offence under section 306 RPC only when there are allegations, those fall within the meaning of section 107 RPC resulting into suicide by the other. 12. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the deceased was a driver, who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer, who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The deceased thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts, the Apex Court held that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. The prayer for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by Apex Court and the proceedings were quashed. 13. Further in Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2018(7) SCC 781 , the accused therein assigned some work to his employee and further the said employee was called at odd hours and even on holidays to get the work done and the said accused had stopped his salary for one month and also threatening that his increment would be stopped. Apex Court held that the same cannot be held to be an offence under Section 306 of the IPC and the FIR for commission of the offences under Section 306 of the IPC was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. So far as instant FIR is concerned, there is no material on record to justify the continuance of investigation so far as the petitioner is concerned. The case of the petitioner squarely falls within the parameters of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in which it has been held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised 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 complaint, 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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not 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 without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.” 15. In view of what has been discussed above, the FIR No. 11 of 2013 dated 22.10.2013 registered with Police Station Purmandal for commission of offence under section 306 R.P.C is quashed qua the petitioner only. 16. CD file be returned to concerned AAG forthwith.