MAHENDRA K C versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. on 29 October 2021

582

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 582

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 10 S.C.R.

A

MAHENDRA K C

v.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2021)

BOCTOBER 29, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDB. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of powerunder, scope – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, theCdriver of accused-second respondent committed suicide – In thesuicide note, he had made serious and grave allegations againstthe accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionateto the known sources of income and a detailed account of the roleof the accused in the events which led to the deceased committingDsuicide – Second respondent successfully filed s.482 applicationfor quashing the criminal proceedings – Hence the instant appeal– Held: High Court while exercising its power under s.482 shouldhave applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations madein the complaint, prima facie constituted an offence; and ii) whetherthe allegations were so improbable that a prudent man would notEarrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceedwith the complaint – Rather, High Court stalled the investigation bygranting an interim order of stay – The alleged suicide was of aperson who was working as a driver of a Special Land AcquisitionOfficer against whom serious and grave allegations of amassingFwealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were madeby the deceased and a detailed account of the role of the accusedin the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – Thesewere matters of investigation and possibly trial – If the investigationhad been allowed to proceed, there would have been a revelationof material facts which would have aided in the trial, for the allegedGoffence against the second respondent – High Court tested theveracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicidenote left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of anevidentiary record which would be collected during the trial – Atthe stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashingHunder s.482, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that ajudge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collectedduring the course of trial – High Court virtually proceeded to holda trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed shouldor should not have been the normal course of human behavior –This is clearly impermissible – The entire judgment of the High Courtconsists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exerciseis beyond the domain of proceeding under s.482 – High Court hadproceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during theinvestigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed byan interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of theproceedings under s.482 – Petition for quashing FIR dismissed –Penal Code, 1860 – s.306.

Mental Health: The High Court while deciding merits of s.482Cr.P.C petition has made observations diminishing the importanceof mental health – Mental health of an individual cannot becompressed to a one size fit all approach.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1. The Single Judge has failed to notice thedistinction between a petition for quashing under Section 482(which was being considered) and a criminal trial or an appealagainst a conviction on a charge under Section 306. The SingleJudge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction under Section482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis andsurmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached aninference on facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity ofthe allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide noteleft behind by the deceased without having the benefit of anevidentiary record which would be collected during the trial. Atthe stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashingunder Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is whetherthe allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding ordetracting from the complaint, prima facie establish theingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Courtcannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter canit proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, onthe basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe High Court in the present case has virtually proceeded tohold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believedshould or should not have been the normal course of humanbehavior. This is clearly impermissible. [Para 16][595-G-H;596-A-C]

B2. The complaint in the present case on the basis of whichthe FIR was registered contains a detailed account of: Theknowledge of the deceased in regard to the illegal activities ofthe accused; the accused having used the deceased’s bankaccount for transfer of funds to his relatives; the deceased havingbeen threatened by the accused and by his “house car driver”Cwith death; and the recovery of the suicide note which was alsouploaded on the Facebook account of the deceased; The suicidenote in turn provides a detailed account of the wealth amassedby the second respondent-accused who was an SLAO, worth overRs.100 crores; the second respondent-accused having converted Dapproximately Rs. 100 crores into currency notes of variousdenominations; the knowledge of the deceased with respect theillegal activities of the accused; the accused having used thedeceased for the conversion of currency notes amounting to overRs. 75 crores; the payment of the salary of the deceased, whowas a driver having been stopped for three months; a threat ofEmurder being administered to the deceased following a shortagein the currency; and the deceased having decided to end his lifeby consuming poison, having suffered at the hands of the accused.In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of thecontents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind Fto arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR hadbeen established. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judgehas transgressed the well settled limitations on the exercise ofthe powers under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into aterritory which is reserved for a criminal trial. [Paras 17, 18][596-D-H; 597-A-D]G

State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC540 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 548; State of Haryana v.Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3Suppl. SCR 259; State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori (2012)10 SCC 155 : [2012] 8 SCR 858; State of Telangana v.HManagipet (2019) 19 SCC 87 – relied on.

3. The High Court while exercising its power under Section482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted against the secondrespondent-accused should have applied the following two tests:i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facieconstitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are soimprobable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusionthat there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint.[Para 21][599-G-H; 600-A-B]

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; Chitresh KumarChopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v.State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 : [2009] 15SCR 836; Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal(2012) 9 SCC 734 : [2012] 8 SCR 1129; VaijnathKondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7SCC 781; M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By ItsInspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh v.State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9SCR 703; Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana(2020) 15 SCC 359; Gurcharan Singh v. The State ofPunjab (2020) 10 SCC 200; Arnab ManoranjanGoswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 –relied on.

4. While adjudicating on an application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court in the present case travelled far away fromthe parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially,the task before the High Court was to determine whether theallegations made in the first information report or the complaint,even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in theirentirety did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or makeout a case against the accused. Instead of applying this settledprinciple, the High Court has proceeded to analyze from its ownperspective the veracity of the allegations. This is not a casewhere the High Court has arrived at a conclusion that theallegations in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd andinherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acould ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient groundfor proceeding against the accused. Nor is this a case where thecriminal proceeding is manifestly malafide or has been institutedwith an ulterior motive of taking vengeance on the accused. Onthe contrary, the specific allegations in the FIR and in the complaintfind due reflection in the suicide note and establish a prima facieBcase for abetment of suicide within the meaning of Sections 306and 107 of the IPC. The entire judgment of the High Courtconsists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such anexercise is beyond the domain of proceeding under section 482of the CrPC. The High Court has proceeded to scrutinize whatChas been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that theinvestigation had been stayed by an interim order of the HighCourt, during the pendency of the proceedings under section482. [Paras 25, 26][602-F; 603-A-D]

5. The High Court observed that a prima facie case for theDcommission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not madeout since: i) the suicide note does not describe the specific threats;ii) details of the alleged demand of Rs. 8 lacs from the deceasedby the respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note;and iii) no material to corroborate the allegations detailed in thesuicide note has been unearthed by the investigating agency. TheEHigh Court observed that since the deceased took considerabletime to write a twelve page suicide note, “it would have been butnatural for the author to set out the details”. The High Court hasevidently travelled far beyond the limits of its inherent powerunder Section 482 CrPC since instead of determining whetherFon a perusal of the complaint, a prima facie case is made out, ithas analysed the sufficiency of the evidence with reference tothe suicide note and has commented upon and made strongobservations on the suicide note itself. Further, the observationof the High Court that there is no material to corroborate the allegations made in the suicide note is erroneous since it is not aGconsideration for the High Court while exercising its power underSection 482 of the CrPC, particularly in view of the fact that thetrial has not begun and the Single Judge had stayed theinvestigation in the criminal complaint. [Para 27][603-D-G;604-H; 605-A]H

A

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.1238 of 2021.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2020 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.3515 of 2017

With

F

Criminal Appeal No.1239 of 2021.

Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shailja Das, Dr. AnthonyRaju, Ajay Kanojia, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, Sharan Thakur,Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure 1973[1], a Single Judge of the High Court of 1 “CrPC”

AKarnataka quashed (i) a complaint dated 6 December 2016; and (ii) theproceedings initiated pursuant to the complaint. The proceedings whichhave been quashed were registered as Crime No.565 of 2016 on 7December 2016at Police Station Maddur, Mandya District, Karnatakaand pending on the file of the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)and JMFC Maddur. The complainant, at whose behest the FirstBInformation Report[2] was registered foran offence punishable underSection 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860[3], andthe State of Karnataka are in appeal against the judgment of the HighCourt dated 29 May 2020.The Single Judge was persuaded to quash theproceedings on the ground that the continuation of the prosecution “wouldC[be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time”, besides requiringthe accused-respondent “to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial”.

A Facts

A Facts

2. On 6 December 2016, a complaint was lodged at Maddur PoliceStation at 20:00 hours by the appellant who is the brother of the deceased.DThe complaint narrates that the appellant’s brother was working as adriver for the accused-second respondent. The second respondent is anofficer of the State of Karnataka and is employed in the capacity of aSpecial Land Acquisition Officer[4]. According to the complaint, thedeceased would travel from Bengaluru once in a month to visit the familyEhome and meet his family and friends. Among his friends was ShashiKumar. It is alleged that on 4 December 2016 the deceased met anotherfriend, Shiva Kumar at Bengaluru and went to the village. After enquiringabout the welfare of his parents, the deceased shared his anguish withthe complainant and Shiva Kumar that the accused, who is an SLAO,has amassed disproportionate assets worth over one hundred croresFand had utilized the mobile and bank account of the deceased to transferfunds to his relatives in the course of converting “black money into white”.The complaint narrates that since the deceased was aware of the dealingsof the accused, the accused together with another driver, had beenthreatening him with murder.G3. On 6 December 2016 at about 1:30pm, Shashi Kumar calledthe complainant to inform him that the deceased was staying in a roomin a lodge and was not opening the door. When he attempted to call the 2 “FIR”3 “IPC”H4 “SLAO”

deceased on his cell phone, the deceased spoke in a drunken state and itwas apprehended that he was in some difficulty. The complainant allegedthat he proceeded to the lodge at 3.00 pm and met Shashi Kumar andfound that the room was bolted from inside. The complainant wasinformed that on 4 December 2016, the deceased had asked ShashiKumar to arrange a room at a lodge, where he stayed with Shashi Kumar.The deceased is alleged to have informed Shashi Kumar that his lifewas in danger as the deceased was aware of the illegal activities of theaccused in amassing wealth as a result of which he was being threatenedwith murder. The deceased asked Shashi Kumar to leave the room asthe deceased was expecting another friend of his, Suresh, to join him,with whom he was going to discuss the activities of the accused. On 5December 2016, the deceased called Shashi Kumar to bring him food atthe lodge, which was delivered. The deceased informed Shashi Kumarthat his friend Suresh had not turned up. He also told Shashi Kumar toreturn home as one of his other friends would be staying with him.

4. On finding that the deceased was not opening his room on 6December 2016, a ladder was used by the complainant to access thewindow of the deceased’s room, with the help of the Manager of thelodge. The deceased was found to be in “sleeping mode”. The MaddurPolice Station was informed and when the door of his room was openedat 18:00 hours, the deceased was found to have died. On a teapoy nextto the cot, a bottle of liquor, poison and a suicide note written by thedeceased were found. The suicide note was uploaded by the deceasedon his Facebook account through his mobile. The complaint narratesthat the suicide note has referred to the illegal activities of the accusedin amassing wealth in excess of Rs. 100 crores, converting black moneyinto white and transferring funds from the bank account of the deceasedthrough his mobile to the accounts of the relatives of the accused. Thecomplaint alleged that the accused had threatened the deceased withdeath and harassed him as a result of which the deceased, having sufferedmental stress, committed suicide by consuming poison.

5. The FIR was registered at 20:00 hours on 6 December 2016.Thesecond respondent-accused, an SLAO for Bengaluru City, and anotherdriver of his car were named as accused. The suicide note recorded bythe deceased allegedly in his own handwriting contains a detailed narrationof the properties alleged to have been illegally acquired by the secondrespondent. Besides detailing the properties which were acquired by theaccused in paragraphs 1 to 13, the suicide note refers to:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(i)The transfer of funds in several lakhs of rupees by theaccused to his relatives by using the cell phone and bankaccount of the deceased;

(ii) The conversion of approximately Rs.100crores into currencynotes of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-; B

(iii) The knowledge of the deceased in regard to the transactionsof the accused as a result of which he had been threatenedto be killed “by rowdies”;

(iv) A raid conducted against the accused by the establishmentof the Lokayukta of Karnataka while he was posted in theCHousing Board;

(v) The involvement of judges to whom presents or gifts weremade;

(vi) The payment of salary to the deceased having been stoppedat the behest of the accused; D

(vii) The accused having used the deceased for changingcurrency worth over Rs.75 crores; and

(viii) The deceased being in knowledge of “all the information”,and when a shortage of an amount of Rs.8 lakh was found,the deceased had been directed to make good the deficiency,failing which he was threatened to be killed by rowdies.

E

6. In this backdrop, the deceased recorded that he had beenthreatened by the accused and hence was ending his life by consumingpoison. Both the second respondent and his “house driver” wereFspecifically named as responsible for this death.

7. The second respondent-accused was arrested on 11 December2016. On 12 December 2016, based on a complaint made by BT Suresh,a friend of the deceased, an FIR was registered against the accused asCrime No.128/2016 in Ijur Police Station, Ramnagar District, underGSections 323, 324, 341, 342, 363, 506, 114 read with Sections 120B and34 of the IPC.

8. On 18 April 2017, the accused instituted a petition under Section482 CrPC for quashing the FIR registered as Crime No. 565/2016. ASingle Judge of the High Court of Karnataka stayed investigation andHproceedings in Crime No.565/2016. After arguments were heard, MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

judgment was reserved on 12 November 2019. Eventually, by hisjudgment delivered nearly 6 months thereafter on 29 May 2020, theSingle Judge allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings relating tothe complaint and FIR registered as Crime No.565/2016.

A

9. At the outset, it is necessary to elucidate the reasons whichhave weighed with the High Court in quashing the FIR. The High Courthas held that:

B

(i) The suicide note which consists of 21 numbered paragraphsgives a detailed account of the transactions undertaken bythe accused; C

(ii) For a person who has made such a detailed account oftwenty transactions in the suicide note, it can be prudentlyexpected that the deceased would have furnished detailsof the threats administrated to him by the accused;

(iii) In the unnumbered paragraph of the suicide note “the totallydifferent story” is set out, stating that the accused threatenedto kill the deceased since there was a shortage of cash tothe tune of Rs 8 lacs for which the accused suspected thedeceased to be responsible; D

(iv) The deceased held the accused responsible for withholdinghis salary for three months; E

(v) Though a query was put to the Government Pleader andcounsel for the complainant as to whether the investigationhad thrown up any material which corroborated theallegations set out in the suicide note, the GP submitted that“they have not been able to unearth any material tocorroborate any of the allegations”; F

(vi) Though the petition was instituted before the High Courton 18 April 2017, and was pending for over three years, nocorroborative material had been produced before the CourtGby the investigating agency;

(vii) Even assuming that the accused has amassed huge wealth,that would not constitute a good ground for a person tocommit suicide since it was not the case of the deceasedthat the accused had deprived him of his wealth; H

A(viii) The suicide note contains no incriminating statement ormaterial except for a bald and vague statement that theaccused had threatened the deceased;

(ix) The complaint does not disclose details of the alleged threatnor does it state that the deceased had on multiple occasionsBcomplained of having received threats from the accused;

(x) The allegation in regard to the demand for repayment ofRs 8 lacs rings hollow “as neither the prosecution nor thede facto complainant had placed an iota of material that thedeceased was or had in fact been in possession of hugeCsum of money”;

(xi) No act proximate to the time of death is alleged against theaccused;

(xii) If the allegation of the demand of Rs. 8 lacs was correct, itwould have been natural for the accused to restrain theDdeceased from leaving Bangalore to ensure the recoveryof the alleged sum;

(xiii) The investigation had not thrown up any material regardingthe use of the mobile banking facilities of the deceased forthe transfer of funds;E(xiv) Neither the death-note nor investigation revealed a threatcall to the deceased;

(xv) The only witness who could have spoken about the veracityof the suicide note was the deceased;(xvi) If a threat had been administered to the deceased, he wouldFhave narrated the incident to the complainant or his friends;

(xvii) Even if a threat was given, the nature of the threat wouldhave to be examined particularly on the question as towhether it was of such an alarming proportion so as to drivea ‘normal person’ to contemplate suicide;G

(xviii) If the deceased had felt threatened by the accused, thiswas belied by his visits to his village to meet his parents andfriends and the failure to lodge a complaint with the policeparticularly when the Police Commissionerate was a stone’sthrow away. This casts doubt on the veracity of the suicideHnote;

(xix) Since the deceased had consumed alcohol, it is possiblethat in the grip of intoxicants he had failed to act sanely;

(xx) The conduct of the deceased in attending a marriage in adifferent town is indicative of the actions of a normal person;and

(xxi) How the deceased had sourced the poison was unknown.

10. The judgment of the Single Judge has given rise to two specialleave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution: one by thecomplainant and the second by the State of Karnataka.

B Submission of parties

11. Mr Mahesh Thakur, has appeared for the complainant in supportof his appeal. In the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, Mr V.N.Raghupathy has appeared and made submissions. The respondent-accused has been represented in the course of his submissions by MrSharan Thakur.

12. Mr Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe complainant urged the following submissions:

(i) The matter being at the stage of investigation and the secondrespondent having been enlarged on bail, the Single Judgehas manifestly erred in quashing the FIR as a result of whichthe entire investigation has been scuttled midstream;

(ii) The High Court has completely failed to notice theseriousness and gravity of the allegations made against theaccused;

(iii) The precedents of this Court indicate that in exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court doesnot function as a court of appeal or revision and thejurisdiction has to be exercised with care andcircumspection;

(iv) The allegations in the FIR and the contents of the complaint,if taken on their face and accepted in their entirety, clearlyindicate the commission of an offence punishable underSection 306 of the IPC by the accused, in which event itwas improper for the High Court to quash the proceedings; A

B

C

E

F

G

H

A(v)Besides the suicide note, the deceased had informed boththe complainant and other witnesses of the harassmentwhich he had suffered at the hands of the secondrespondent-accused who had a position of influence as anSLAO and with whom the deceased worked as a driver; B(vi)The nature of the threats and whether the deceased hadreceived calls was a matter for investigation;

(vii) The suicide note contains a detailed account of the illegalactivities of the second respondent-accused in amassingdisproportionate wealth and the manner in which theCdeceased had been utilized for transfer of funds; and

(viii) The High Court has despite the specific allegations in thesuicide note and in the complaint enquired into the veracityof the allegations, thereby conducting a trial at the stage ofconsidering a petition for quashing a criminal complaint.

D13. Mr V.N. Raghupathy learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe State of Karnataka has urged similar submissions. It has beensubmitted that:

(i) The suicide note which was recovered under a mahazar bythe jurisdictional police had also been uploaded by theEdeceased from his Facebook account;

(ii) The suicide note was submitted to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory for analysis but the High Court stayed theinvestigation while entertaining the proceedings underSection 482 CrPC and scuttled the investigation;F(iii)The allegations in the complaint and the suicide note containa clear and detailed account of the harassment caused tothe deceased at the behest of the second respondent-accused which on its face establishes a case of abetmentof suicide; and G(iv)Another complaint filed by a friend of the deceased whichwas registered at Ijur Police Station in Ram Nagar District(Crime No.128/2016) corroborates the averments made inCrime No.565/2016 of Maddur Police Station.

14. On the other hand, Mr Sharan Thakur, learned counselHappearing on behalf of the second respondent – accused submitted that:

(i) Abetment postulates an instigation and in the context ofASection 306, the instigation must be to an extent where thereis no option but to commit suicide;

(ii) The allegations in the complaint and in the suicide note fallshort of the ingredients to establish a case of abetment andhence the essential requirements of the offence underBSection 306 have not been established;

(iii) The Single judge of the High Court had furnished reasonsfor indicating that the allegations contained in the suicidenote are inherently improbable; C

(iv) The version of the complainant is full of contradictions andinconsistencies;

(v) The suicide note fails to mention any overt act by theaccused which would have driven the deceased to commitsuicide. During the period between 11 December 2016,when the accused was taken into custody and 29 DecemberD2016, when he was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Courtat Mandya, extensive enquiries and investigation werecarried out by the investigating agency including the StatePolice and ACP Karnataka, in spite of which no incriminatingevidence has been found; and E

(vi) It is a well settled principle of law that in cases involvingabetment of suicide there must be a number of direct orindirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Inother words, a mere allegation of harassment would notsuffice unless the action on the part of the accused compelsthe person to commit suicide.

F

15. The rival submissions now fall for analysis.

C Analysis

16. On reading the judgment of the Single Judge, it would appearthat the Single Judge has failed to notice the distinction between a petitionfor quashing under Section 482 (which was being considered) and acriminal trial or an appeal against a conviction on a charge under Section306. The Single Judge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction underSection 482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis andsurmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached an inference G

H

Aon facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity of the allegations inthe criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind by the deceasedwithout having the benefit of an evidentiary record which would becollected during the trial. At the stage when the High Court considers apetition for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be appliedis whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without addingBor detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredientsof the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test theveracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the mannerthat a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collectedduring the course of trial. The High Court in the present case has virtuallyCproceeded to hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what itbelieved should or should not have been the normal course of humanbehavior. This is clearly impermissible.

17. The complaint in the present case on the basis of which theFIR was registered contains a detailed account of:

D(i)The knowledge of the deceased in regard to the illegalactivities of the accused;

(ii) The accused having used the deceased’s bank account fortransfer of funds to his relatives;

(iii) The deceased having been threatened by the accused andEby his “house car driver” with death; and

(iv) The recovery of the suicide note which was also uploadedon the Facebook account of the deceased; The suicide note in turn provides a detailed account of F(a)The wealth amassed by the second respondent-accused who was an SLAO, worth over Rs.100crores; (b)The second respondent-accused having convertedapproximately Rs. 100 crores into currency notes ofvarious denominations;G

(c) The knowledge of the deceased with respect theillegal activities of the accused; (d)The accused having used the deceased for theconversion of currency notes amounting to over Rs.75 crores;H

(e) The payment of the salary of the deceased, who wasAa driver having been stopped for three months; (f)A threat of murder being administered to the deceasedfollowing a shortage in the currency; and (g)The deceased having decided to end his life byBconsuming poison, having suffered at the hands ofthe accused.

18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of thecontents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind toarrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had beenestablished. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge hastransgressed the well settled limitations on the exercise of the powersunder Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a territory which isreserved for a criminal trial.

C

19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issuesuch orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process orotherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise ofpower under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well settled. In State ofOrissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo[5], a two judge Bench of this Court,observed that:

D

EF

“8. […] While exercising powers under the section, the courtdoes not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherentjurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercisedsparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exerciseis justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantialjustice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authorityof the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attemptis made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, thecourt has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of processof the court to allow any action which would result in injustice andprevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court wouldbe justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court orquashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends ofjustice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may G

H

Aexamine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed,it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the reporthas alleged and whether any offence is made out even if theallegations are accepted in toto.”

These principles emanate from the decisions of this Court in StateBof Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal[6]and State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori[7].In Surendra Kori (supra), this Court observed:

“14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section482 CrPC does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision.This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherentCjurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, though wide, has to be usedsparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section482 CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a prima faciedecision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,more so when the evidence has not been collected and producedbefore the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,Dare of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspectivewithout sufficient material.”

20. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court laid down the principles forthe exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powersunder Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR. Justice Ratnavel PandianElaid down the limits on the exercise of the power under Section 482CrPC for quashing the FIR and observed:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevantprovisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principlesof law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating toFthe exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or theinherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we haveextracted and reproduced above, we give the following categoriesof cases by way of illustration wherein such power could beexercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court orotherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibleGto lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficientlychannelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to givean exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershould be exercised.

6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335H7 (2012) 10 SCC 155

6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335H7 (2012) 10 SCC 155

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report orthe complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offenceor make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and othermaterials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizableoffence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate withinthe purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out a caseagainst the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizableoffence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of aMagistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudentperson can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficientground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuanceof the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision inthe Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress forthe grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and witha view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

The judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been recently relied onby this Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet[8].

21. Based on the above precedent, the High Court while exercisingits power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted 8 (2019) 19 SCC 87

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aagainst the second respondent-accused should have applied the followingtwo tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facieconstitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are so improbablethat a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficientground to proceed with the complaint. Before proceeding further, it isimperative to briefly discuss the law on the abetment of suicide toBdetermine if a prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC has beenmade against the respondent-accused.

22. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment of the abetmentof suicide:“306. Abetment of suicide—If any person commits suicide,Cwhoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishedwith imprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section107 of the IPC defines the expression “abetment”:D“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 inany conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omissionElakes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to thedoing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doingof that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who by willful misrepresentation, or byFwillful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, athing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

23. The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do athing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. InGRamesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh[9], a three-judge Bench ofthis Court, speaking through Justice RC Lahoti (as the learned ChiefJustice then was), observed:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite orencourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to thateffect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily andspecifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonablecertainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being speltout. The present one is not a case where the accused had by hisacts or omission or by a continued course of conduct createdsuch circumstances that the deceased was left with no other optionexcept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may havebeen inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said tobe instigation.”

24. A two judge Bench of this Court in Chitresh Kumar Choprav. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi[10]), speaking through Justice DK Jain,observed:

“19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002SCC (Cri) 1088] , where the accused by his acts or by a continuedcourse of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceasedwas left with no other option except to commit suicide, an“instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to provethat the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it hasto be established that:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased bywords, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be awilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced thedeceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct tomake the deceased move forward more quickly in a forwarddirection; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encouragethe deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner notedabove. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessaryconcomitant of instigation.

20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to thecase at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicidehas no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours inhuman beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individualsin the same situation react and behave differently because of thepersonal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aindividual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual’s suicidabilitypattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain,fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucialand exacerbating contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to endhis own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protectionor an escapism from intolerable self.”B

This has been reiterated in the decision in Amalendu Pal @Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[11], where it has been observed:

“12. […] It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of allegedabetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect actsCof incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegationof harassment without there being any positive action proximateto the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led orcompelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms ofSection 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

D(See also in this context the judgments in Praveen Pradhan v.State of Uttaranchal[12], Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State ofMaharashtra[13], M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By ItsInspector of Police)[14], Ude Singh v. State of Haryana[15], Rajesh @Sarkari v. The State of Haryana[16]and Gurcharan Singh v. The Stateof Punjab[17].These decisions have been recently referred to in theEjudgment of this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State ofMaharashtra[18]).

25. While adjudicating on an application under Section 482 CrPC,the High Court in the present case travelled far away from the parametersfor the exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially, the task before the HighFCourt was to determine whether the allegations made in the firstinformation report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their facevalue and accepted in their entirety did or did not prima facie constitutean offence or make out a case against the accused.

G11 (2010) 1 SCC 70712 (2012) 9 SCC 73413 (2018) 7 SCC 78114 (2019) 3 SCC 31515 (2019) 17 SCC 30116 (2020) 15 SCC 35917 (2020) 10 SCC 200H18 (2021) 2 SCC 427

26. Instead of applying this settled principle, the High Court hasproceeded to analyze from its own perspective the veracity of theallegations. It must be emphasized that this is not a case where the HighCourt has arrived at a conclusion that the allegations in the FIR or thecomplaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of whichno prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficientground for proceeding against the accused. Nor is this a case where thecriminal proceeding is manifestly malafide or has been instituted withan ulterior motive of taking vengeance on the accused. On the contrary,the specific allegations in the FIR and in the complaint find due reflectionin the suicide note and establish a prima facie case for abetment ofsuicide within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. Theentire judgment of the High Court consists of a litany of surmises andconjectures and such an exercise is beyond the domain of proceedingunder section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court has proceeded toscrutinize what has been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring thatthe investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court,during the pendency of the proceedings under section 482.

27. The High Court observed that a prima facie case for thecommission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made outsince: i) the suicide note does not describe the specific threats; ii) detailsof the alleged demand of Rs. 8 lacs from the deceased by the respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note; and iii) no material tocorroborate the allegations detailed in the suicide note has been unearthedby the investigating agency. The High Court observed that since thedeceased took considerable time to write a twelve page suicide note, “itwould have been but natural for the author to set out the details”. TheHigh Court has evidently travelled far beyond the limits of its inherentpower under Section 482 CrPC since instead of determining whether ona perusal of the complaint, a prima facie case is made out, it has analysedthe sufficiency of the evidence with reference to the suicide note andhas commented upon and made strong observations on the suicide noteitself. Paras 32, 33, 34 and 39 of the order of the High Court are extractedbelow:

“32. In paragraph no.21, a bald statement is made stating thatbecause he is aware of all the above transaction, he was given adeath threat. In the next sentence, he states that he has beenpsychologically/emotionally trouble and hence, he is consuming AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

poison and that the petitioner and his driver alone are responsible.For a person, who has detailed 20 transactions, it can be prudentlyexpected of such a person to give details of the threat.

A

33. In the next unnumbered paragraph, a totally different story/note is set out as a reason for the petitioner threatening theBdeceased. In the unnumbered paragraph, he states that there wasshortage in the cash to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and that the petitionersuspected him as being responsible for the same and hence,threatened him that if the deceased did not repay said Rs.8 lakhs,he would have the deceased killed at the hands of rowdies.Thereafter, in the next sentence he states that in view of the same,Che has decided to consume poison and that the petitioner and hisdriver are responsible for the same.

34. In paragraph no.20, the deceased holds the petitionerresponsible for withholding the salary for the last three months.The other paragraphs including paragraph no.20 detail theDproperties said to have been amassed by the petitioner and otherillegal transactions. After having perused and scrutinized the deathnote, a query was put to the learned High Court GovernmentPleader and the counsel appearing on behalf of 2[nd] respondentas to whether the investigation has thrown up any material thatEcorroborates any of the allegations set-out in the death note. Thelearned High Court Government Pleader would fairly submit thatthey have not been able unearth any material to corroborate anyof the allegations.

39. As discussed above, the death note contains no incriminatingFstatement or material except for a bald and vague statement butthat the accused had threatened him. Even the complaint doesnot disclose any details of the alleged threat nor does the complaintstate that the deceased had on multiple occasions complained ofhaving received threats from accused. Even the allegation of thedemand for repayment of Rs.8 lakhs rings hollow as neither theGprosecution nor the de-facto complainant have been able to placean iota of material that the deceased was or had in fact been inpossession of huge sum of money.”

Further, the observation of the High Court that there is no materialto corroborate the allegations made in the suicide note is erroneous sinceHit is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, particularly in view of the fact that thetrial has not begun and the Single Judge had stayed the investigation inthe criminal complaint.

28. The Single Judge, other than deciding on the merits of thecase while exercising the power under Section 482 of the CrPC, hasalso made observations diminishing the importance of mental health.The mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one size fitsall approach. In paragraph 37 of the impugned judgment, the Single Judgeobserved:

“37. It is not the case of the deceased that the accused had deprivedhim of his wealth or have committed acts that have shattered hishopes in life or separated him from his family and friends.”

The Single Judge then makes the following observation inparagraphs 41 and 43:

“41. [..] It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceasedwas running away from or escaping the petitioner or his henchmen,but as is his habit, to visit his parents and to spend time with hisfriends. If the deceased had really felt threatened, he would havedefinitely approached the police. It is not that he was naive or notworldly-wise. If his employment with the petitioner was true, thenthe Police Commissionerate was only a stone’s throw away. It isnot that the deceased was a weakling. The deceased by profession,is a driver. A profession where, accidents causing loss of life andlimb are a daily occurrence and every driver is aware that hecould be involved in an accident at any time.

43. His act of attending a relatives marriage in a different townand his interacting with friends and relatives are all actions of anormal person and not of a person under severe duress. Thecontention that this criminal case would jeopardize his careerprogression also cannot be brushed aside. It is also not forthcomingas to how he sourced the poison.”

29. The Single Judge has termed a person who decided to commitsuicide a ‘weakling’ and has also made observations on how the behaviorof the deceased before he committed suicide was not that of a personwho is depressed and suffering from mental health issues. Behaviouralscientists have initiated the discourse on the heterogeneity of everyindividual and have challenged the traditional notion of ‘all humans behave A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aalike’. Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in thebehavior of people. Therefore, how an individual copes up with a threat-both physical and emotional, expressing (or refraining to express) love,loss, sorrow and happiness, varies greatly in view of the multi-facetednature of the human mind and emotions. Thus, the observations describingthe manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeplyBdiminishes the gravity of mental health issues.

30. The High Court by its order has prevented the completion ofthe investigation in the complaint registered as Crime No.565/2016 pendingon the file of the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFCCourt, Maddur, Mandya District. The alleged suicide is of a person whoCwas working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is apublic servant and against whom serious and grave allegations of amassingwealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made bythe deceased. The suicide note contains a detailed account of the role ofthe accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide.DThese are matters of investigation and possibly trial. The High Courtstalled the investigation by granting an interim order of stay. If theinvestigation had been allowed to proceed, there would have been arevelation of material facts which would aid in the trial, for the allegedoffence against the second respondent.

E31. For the above reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside theimpugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court ofKarnataka dated 29 May 2020.In the circumstances, the petition forquashing the FIR instituted by the respondent-accused shall standdismissed.

F32. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

G

H