CRLP/7407/2018 of Sombhatla Mohan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.239 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2) Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 herein submitted a report alleging she has working in the Railway Electrical Department at South office, for the past 25 years and her office is located opposite to Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam. The petitioner herein directed the complainant to work at the AEE house, but she denied to work at the house and tendered her willingness to work in the office and she has informed the same to her husband over phone and her husband asked the petitioner herein about the same, who replied that the said system is existence in the office. On that her husband complained the matter to DRM and Senior DEE, but they did not take any action, moreover complained against her husband that her husband came to office in drunken state and also took her signature forcibly on the papers and that a warning letter was issued to her as he spoke with Sakshi TV. Because of which, the complainant and her husband got humiliated a lot, and on the date of incident i.e. on 31.07.2015 at about 07.30 a.m. her husband went to the opposite house and did not return till 8.30 a.m., thereafter, one Nirmala Kumari came to the complainant and informed that her husband is in the opposite house, upon which the complainant and her two children went to the said house and knocked the doors and found that the husband of the complainant committed suicide. It is further alleged in the complaint that the husband of the complainant was beaten by some unknown persons as he complained the matter to DRM. The complainant gave complaint to DRM, who in turn directed the same to Charumathi for enquiry, but she did not start the enquiry and no justice is rendered to her. The husband of the complainant wrote a suicide letter stating that S.Mohan (petitioner herein) is responsible for his death and that the petitioner herein, S.V.R. Murthy and all other staff are harassing the complainant, for which they felt a lot.

3) Basing on the said complaint, Visakhapatnam IV Town police registered a case in Crime No.369 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was numbered as S.C.No.239 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. The present petition has been filed by the accused to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.239 of 2017.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated falsely without there being any incriminating material and that the complainant is adamant and she used to harass the officials. Further, as the petitioner is a public servant, prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary. The names of one S.V.R.Murthy and other staff members are also mentioned in the F.I.R., however, charge sheet has been filed only against the petitioner, which clearly shows the intention of the police authorities is to harass the petitioner and

that the petitioner has not instigate the husband of the complainant to commit suicide, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint would not constitute offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., and requested to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.239 of 2017.

5) Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner harassed the complainant, directed her to work at the AEE house and as she did not accept the same, issued a warning letter as she spoke with Sakshi TV, and in view of the acts of the petitioner, the complainant and her husband got humiliated a lot, and that the husband of the complainant committed suicide by writing a suicide letter that the petitioner herein is responsible for his death. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner prompted the husband of the complainant to commit suicide. As the deceased (husband of the complainant) committed suicide due to the acts of the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.239 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

P O I N T:

7) The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8) Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.

9) Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:

10) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in

exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar[1]”

11) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand.

12) It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner directed her to work at the house of AEE, but she denied to work at the house of AEE and her husband complained the matter to DRM and senior DEE. They did not take any action and more over complained against the husband of the complainant that he came to office in drunken state. Thereafter, higher authorities of the complainant issued a warning letter to her, on receiving such warning letter, the complainant and her husband got humiliated a lot for receiving such a warning letter after 25 years of service and on 31.07.2015, her husband went to the opposite vacant house and committed suicide by writing a suicide letter that the petitioner herein is responsible for his death and that the petitioner, S.V.R. Murthy and all other staff are harassing her. On coming to know about the death of the husband of the complainant, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.

1 AIR 1990 SC 494

13) The complainant alleged that the acts of the petitioner directing her to work at the house of AEE and issuance of warning letter to her abetted her husband to commit suicide, therefore, the petitioner is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Now, this Court has to examine whether the alleged acts of the petitioner would amount to abetment?

14) Section 306 of I.P.C. provides for punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107 of I.P.C. which defines the act of 'abetment'. The provisions read as follows:

15) “Section 306 of I.P.C. deals with abetment of suicide, which reads thus:

“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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

“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.”

16) Section 306 of I.P.C. penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section,

the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of I.P.C. These conditions include that the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.

17) It is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea i.e. the intention to abet the act is essential to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by the Apex Court in “S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan[2]”, wherein it was observed that:

“25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

18) In “Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttarpradesh[3]”, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court, while referring to “S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan” (referred supra), held as follows:

“'Abetment' involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the Accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence Under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. To proceed against any person for the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

19) To prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. The Apex Court in the case of “Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh[4]”, defined the word "instigate" as under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation 3(2021) 13 SCC 806

4(2001) 9 SCC 618

though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the Accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

20) The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case Under Section 306, Indian Penal Code are:

i. the abetment;

ii. the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

21) Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by his act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt.

22) It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must establish that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear proof of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

23) The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's behavior and the tragic outcome. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active involvement to hold the Accused accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. Therefore, to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court has to examine whether the conduct of the accused, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or instigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim.

24) On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding Section 306 of I.P.C. in the judgments (referred above), there appears no proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and the death of the husband of the complainant. Further, the acts of the petitioner in directing the complainant to work at the house of AEE, and issuance of a warning letter to her as she denied to work there, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide as the petitioner committed those acts in discharge of his official duties only. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has no requisite mens rea and he did not commit any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased just before the date of incident.

25) The complaint filed by the defacto complainant also discloses that on 07.07.2015 two miscreants came on bike and beat her husband, for which her husband was admitted in Railway hospital and also a complaint was lodged in the IV Town Police Station. Taking into consideration of the said incident, it cannot be said that the petitioner is only responsible for the suicide of the husband of the complainant.

26) Further, as the petitioner is public servant andif there is any nexus between the commission of offence and discharging his duties, the investigating agency is bound to obtain sanction from the competent authority as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner.

27) Section 197 of Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution of Judges and public servants, which reads thus:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government :

[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.] [Added by Act 43 of 1991, Section 2 (w.e.f. 2-5-1991).]”

28) The object and purpose underlying Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to afford protection to public servants against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The larger interest of the efficiency of State administration demands that public servants should be free to perform their official duty fearlessly and undeterred by apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of private parties to whom annoyance of injury may have been caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their official duty. Section 197 Cr.P.C is designed to facilitate effective and unhampered performance of their official duty by public servants by providing for scrutiny into the allegations of commission of offence by them by their superior authorities and prior sanction for their prosecution as condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence against them by Court. (vide B.P. Srivastava Vs. N.D. Mishra[5])

29) Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is a public servant and sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained before initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. On this ground also, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

30) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the ingredients for the offence Under Section 306 of I.P.C. are not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record and that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. from the competent authority was not obtained before initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings in the present case have to be quashed.

31) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.239 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam are hereby quashed.

32) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

31.12.2024 Ksp