GEO VARGHESE versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. on 5 October 2021

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 393

GEO VARGHESE

v.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021)

OCTOBER 05, 2021

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Allegation againstappellant was that the son of the complainant committed suicidedue to mental harassment meted out by the appellant – Appellantwas physical Training Teacher in the school where complainant’sson was student – Appellant was also assigned responsibility formaintaining overall discipline by the students of the school – Theallegations in the FIR was that the appellant had harassed andinsulted her son in the presence of everyone due to which he wasunder deep mental pressure and committed suicide – High Courtdismissed s. 482 application for quashing the FIR – Hence theinstant appeal – Held: To constitute an alleged abetment of suicideunder s.306 IPC, there must be an allegation of either direct orindirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide –In the FIR and as also the statement of the complainant recorded bythe police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass andinsult the victim were spelled out nor there were any details withrespect to any action on the part of the appellant by which thedeceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted – Appellantin his petition under s.482 before the High Court set out detailedfacts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failedto even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming tothe conclusion – It was also stated therein that the victim, schoolstudent, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by theappellant and other school staff a number of times – Persistent actof bunking classes was reported to the Principal of the School,who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school – Asimple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indisciplineby a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate goodqualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amountto instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of suicide by astudent – No further overt act was attributed to the appellant either

393

A

B

C

DEF

GH

Ain the FIR or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything inthis regard was stated in the alleged suicide note – Thus, no mensrea can be attributed – In the absence of the element of abetmentmissing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offenceunder s.306 IPC do not exist – All these facts were clearly ignoredby the High Court while mechanically dismissing the petition underBs.482 CrPC on the ground that FIR disclosed the commission of acognizable offence – High Court was not justified in dismissing theapplication under s.482 CrPC for quashing the FIR in exercise ofits inherent jurisdiction – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Scope of – Held:CHigh Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to doreal and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process ofthe Court – The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemnduty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise – TheCourt must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of thisDpower is based on sound principles – The inherent power vested inthe Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution– However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary powerconferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash aproceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedingto continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or theEends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

Penal Code, 1860: s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Essentialingredients – There must be an allegation of either direct or indirectact of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mereallegations of harassment of the deceased by another person wouldFnot be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actionson the part of the accused which compelled the commission ofsuicide.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

GHELD: 1. An attempt to suicide is considered to be anoffence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide byanybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. Though, theIPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionarymeaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from amodern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’H

means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words, act of death must be committed by thedeceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him inachieving the object of killing himself. Section 306 of IPC makesabetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishmentfor the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC. Theordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bringabout or initiate, incite someone to do something. [Paras 13, 14,15, 16][402-G; 403-B-C, G-H]

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; S.S.Cheena v. VijayKumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010]9 SCR 1111; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State ofMaharashtra & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427; M. Arjunan v.State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3SCC 315; Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019)17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703; Narayan MalhariThorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. (2019) 13SCC 598 : [2018] 14 SCR 232 – relied on.

2. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment ofsuicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation ofeither direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission ofoffence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of thedeceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself,unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of theaccused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, ifthe person committing suicide is hypersensitive and theallegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarilyexpected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extremestep of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accusedguilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is anexamination of every case on its own facts and circumstancesand keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances aswell, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accusedand the psyche of the deceased. [Para 22][408-E-G]

3. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mentalpressure because the appellant had harassed and insulted him in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to schoolon 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by thecomplainant. When he returned from the school, again he wasunder very much pressure and on being enquired told that todayagain he was harassed and insulted by the appellant. The boy wasinformed that the parents have been called to school next dayBand this brought him under further severe pressure and tension.In the First Information Report and as also the statement of thecomplainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for theappellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor thereare any details with respect to any action on the part of theCappellant by which the deceased boy might have felt beingharassed and insulted. [Paras 24, 25][409-A-D]

4. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPCbefore the High Court has set out detailed facts andcircumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to evenDtake notice of much less analyse the same before coming to theconclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, hewas imparting Physical Training to the students from 1[st] to 5[th]standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, wasalso charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the schoolwhich included keeping a watch upon students and oversee thatEthey are attending the classes instead of bunking the same andmoving around in the school premises without permission. It wasalso stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used tobunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other schoolstaff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by theFappellant bunking classes and moving around the school campuswithout any cause or permission and a warning was given to him.On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again theappellant issued him a warning and reported the same to thePrincipal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy tocome to the school. [Para 26][409-D-G]G

5. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in thestudents. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or otherauthorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline,would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, H

unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment andinsult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simpleact of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline bya teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the goodqualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amountto instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicideby a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one ofthe legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the Right ofChildren to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to holdregular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise themabout the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress madein learning and any other act or relevant information about thechild. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularlybunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeatedacts, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, whocalled the parents on telephone to come to the school. No furtherovert act has been attributed to the appellant either in the FirstInformation Report or in the statement of the complainant, noranything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicidenote. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as, theappellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’.Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act orinstigation on the part of the appellant to connect him withthe offence for which he is being charged. [Paras 27, 28, 29][409-G-H; 410-A-F]

6. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for anact of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indisciplineto the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to theparents of the student for the purposes of school discipline andcorrecting a child, any student who is very emotional orsentimental commits suicide, the said teacher cannot be heldliable for the same and charged and tried for the offence ofabetment of suicide under section 306 IPC. Considering the factsthat the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any act done indischarge of his moral or legal duty without their being anycircumstances to even remotely indicate that there was anyintention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one ofhis own pupil, no mens rea can be attributed. In the absence of ABC

D

E

F

G

H

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Athe element of abetment missing from the allegations, theessential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do notexist. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Courtwhile mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482CrPC on the ground that FIR discloses the commission of acognizable offence. [Paras 30, 32, 33][410-F-H; 411-A-C]B

7. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power toact ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or toprevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers beingvery wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiringgreat caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to seeCthat its decision in exercise of this power is based on soundprinciples. The inherent power vested in the Court should notbe exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, theinherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon theHigh Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if itDcomes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continuewould be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends ofjustice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.[Para 34][411-C-E]

8. The suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down byEan immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hyper-sensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to takesuch an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by theaccused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarilyinduce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.[Para 39][414-C]F

State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; Madhavrao JiwajiraoScindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692 : [1988] 2 SCR 930; State ofHaryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp (1)GSCC 335:[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; M/s.ZanduPharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. SharafulHaque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122:[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR790 – relied on.

H

A

9. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie, in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing outany such circumstances showing any such act or intention that heintended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would beabsurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to placethe deceased in such circumstances that there was no optionavailable to him except to commit suicide. Thus, it would betravesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial.A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and theappellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great prejudice,if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevantnature. The High Court was not justified in dismissing theapplication under section 482 CrPC for quashing the FirstInformation Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.[Paras 40, 41, 42][414-D-G]

B

C

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.1164 of 2021.

G

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. PetitionNo.2979 of 2018.

Abhishek Gupta, Adv. for the Appellant.

H

ADr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Aditya Kr. Choudhary,Deepak Chauhan, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Vaibhav Prasad Deo, BabuMalayil, Alok Pandey, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.B1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated30.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan atJaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the petitionunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quashCthe First Information Report dated 02.05.2018 registered as Case No.162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South), the accused, aPhysical Training Teacher in St. Xavier’s School, Nevta, Jaipur and alsoa member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining overall disciplineby the students of the School, who is to face prosecution for offenceDunder Section 306 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)is before us.

3. The appellant herein was appointed as a Physical TrainingTeacher in St. Xavier’s School, Nevta in the year 2016. He was impartingPhysical Training to the students from 1[st] to 5[th] standard. He was also amember of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining overall disciplineEby the students of the School.

4. One student of Class 9[th] of the institution, unfortunately,committed suicide in the morning at about 04:00 AM on 26.04.2018. Themother of the deceased-student lodged the FIR in question on 02.05.2018before the concerned Police Station under Section 306 IPC after aboutF7 days of the suicide, alleging that her son committed suicide due tomental harassment meted out by the appellant.

5. Detailed facts as unfolded in the First Information Report bythe complainant- Respondent No. 2 was that :

On 26.04.2018, my son Nitant Raj Lata, aged 14 years was foundGhanging with the fan in the room at 04:00 AM by his grandmother.Immediately, the knot was opened and after bringing him down,he was immediately taken to Santkba Durlabhji Hospital wheredoctors declared him brought dead. The Hospital administrationinformed the concerned Police Station immediately and on theHsame day, the body of deceased was handed over to the police and postmortem was conducted. It is further stated in the FIRthat on 19.04.2018, Nitant Raj (the deceased) informed her thaton the said day his PTI (Physical Training Instructor) GEO Sirhad harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone becauseof which he was under deep mental pressure. However, shepersuaded her son and sent him to the School on Monday.Thereafter, on 25.04.2018, when the child was in the School, atelephone call was received from school at about 09:00 AM callingthe parents to come to the school on the next day i.e., 26.04.2018.When Nitant returned from the school on 25.04.2018 again hewas under very much pressure and on being inquired he told thattoday again GEO PTI Sir has harassed and insulted him verymuch. On this she persuaded the child that we will go to schooltomorrow and will discuss because a phone call came from theschool. Thereafter, the child had been under more severe pressureand tension. He went to his room to sleep and was found hangingat about 04:00 AM. It is further stated that on 30.04.2018 at 11:00AM, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Kallu Khan, came to the houseand searched his room where a suicide note in two pages andcurtain which was used for hanging and other items like a blankcopy from which two pages were torn and note book, etc. wererecovered.

6. Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant,Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 1and Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 2. We have also gone through the impugned judgmentas also the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counselfor the parties.

7. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellantvehemently contended that on a plain reading of the First InformationReport, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that necessaryingredients to constitute an offence of abetment, as defined under Section306 IPC, are not borne out and the complaint does not disclose thecommission of the said offence.

8. It was further asserted that the allegations made in the FIRclearly spells out that appellant in no manner abetted the commission ofsuicide by the deceased as no such material exists on record and presentproceedings if allowed to continue would be nothing but an abuse of theprocess of law.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. Shri Abhishek Gupta, also took us through the suicide note whichis filed as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same reveals that it is a noteconsisting of three pages with following written on each separate paper:- 01[st] page –‘MY ALL THINGS GOES TO MY DEAR BROKAIRN EVEN MY LOVE BYE BUDDY & SORRY’

B02[nd ]page –‘NEEDED JUSTICE’

03[rd] page –‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’

10. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for theState of Rajasthan contends that the allegations in the FIR discloses acommission of cognizable offence and there is a suicide note specificallyCtaking the name of the appellant. He further contends that the appellantharassed the deceased from 19.04.2018 till 24.04.2018 and ultimately onthe complaint of the appellant when the deceased was called by thePrincipal on 25.04.2018 for bunking classes and the parents were alsoasked to come to school on 26.04.2018, the deceased committed suicideDon the intervening night of 25.04.2018 - 26.04.2018 and there is aproximate nexus in the harassment and suicide and thus, a prima faciecase for alleged cognizable offence is made out against the appellantand the High Court has rightly refused to quash the First InformationReport.

11. Shri Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing forERespondent No. 2 – ‘the Complainant’, while trying to defend theimpugned order submits that the impugned First Information Report clearlymakes out that appellant’s direct and indirect acts of humiliation,harassment led the deceased boy to commit suicide. He further submittedthat the question of mens rea attributable to the appellant cannot beFestablished at this stage when the investigation is yet to be completed.12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counselappearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as aperson committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attemptGto suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. Theabetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which readsas under :- “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide,Hwhoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable tofine.”

14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but theordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derivedfrom a modern latin word ‘suicidium’, ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. Inother words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself,irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object ofkilling himself.

15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminaloffence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is definedunder Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :-

“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of athing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or personsin any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act orillegal 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 doingof that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is boundto disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts tocause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate thedoing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever either prior to or at the time of thecommission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate thecommission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commissionthereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is tobring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in thecase of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh[1]has defined theword ‘instigate’ as under :- 1 (2001) 9 SCC 618

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite orencourage to do an act.”

17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relationwith Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. Inthe case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.[2], it wasBobserved as under:- “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a personor intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Withouta positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid incommitting suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. TheCintention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decidedby the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a personunder Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea tocommit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct actwhich led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no optionand that act must have been intended to push the deceasedDinto such a position that he committed suicide.”

18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Courtin the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra& Ors.[3], while considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC withSection 306 IPC has observed as under :-E

“47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where theHigh Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashingan FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PARTI 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigatingagency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of theFinvestigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court.On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court ifit thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashingand the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction toquash the investigation and may pass appropriate interimorders as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the HighGCourt in the present case has misdirected itself in declining toenquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether theparameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly 2 (2010) 12 SCC 190H3 (2021) 2 SCC 427

established and if so whether a case for the grant of interimbail has been made out. The settled principles which havebeen consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Courtin State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal(Bhajan Lal) include asituation where the allegations made in the FIR or thecomplaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute anyoffence or make out a case against the accused. This legalposition was recently reiterated in a decision by a two-judgeBench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State ofMaharashtra.

48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the HighCourt spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of anyevaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The HighCourt, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I 34fundamental issue which needed to be considered whiledealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of theConstitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, byits judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowedthe petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a monthlater, and therefore declined to allow the appellant‘s prayerfor interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty.The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whetherthe allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the casewithin the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of theIPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.”

19. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by itsInspector of Police[4], a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expoundedthe ingredients of Section 306 IPC in the following words:- “The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused toaid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Theact of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by usingabusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetmentof suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggestingthat the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased AB

C

DE

F

G

H

to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot beconvicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

A

20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment ofa two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs.BState of Haryana[5], which elucidated on the essential ingredients of theoffence under Section 306 IPC in the following words:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be aproof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commissionof suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question ofCcause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offenceof abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involvingmultifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour andresponses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetmentof suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent andconvincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commissionDof suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassmentof the deceased by another person would not suffice unlessthere be such action on the part of the accused which compelsthe person to commit suicide; and such an offending actionought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether aEperson has abetted in the commission of suicide by anotheror not, could only be gathered from the facts andcircumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abettedcommission of suicide by another; the consideration wouldFbe if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the actof suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in thedecisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urgeforward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If thepersons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive andthe action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected toGinduce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, itmay not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment ofsuicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts andby his continuous course of conduct creates a situation whichleads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing theself-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventuallydraws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be heldguilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on thepart of the accused in such cases would be examined withreference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and ifthe acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accusedintended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger,a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment ofsuicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoyingthe deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted orwas provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment ofsuicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of humanbehaviour, each case is required to be examined on its ownfacts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors havingbearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and thedeceased.”

21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of thisCourt in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak DeoraoBhagat and Anr.,[6] wherein the judgement rendered by the High Courtquashing the FIR under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, anFIR was registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son anddaughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where theaccused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile ofthe daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of theson of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stopcalling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, therewas a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accusedand on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that hisfamily life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardonedand should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed bythe accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Courtand thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowedby this Court and made the following observations:- “We now consider the facts of the present case. There aredefinite allegations that the first respondent would keep on AB

C

D

E

F

G

Acalling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassingher which allegations are supported by the statements of themother and the wife of the victim recorded duringinvestigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to thesuicide there was an altercation between the victim and thefirst respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with theBfact that the suicide note made definite allegation againstfirst respondent, the High Court was not justified in enteringinto question whether the first respondent had the requisiteintention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide.At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completedCand charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Courtought not to have gone into the aspect whether there wasrequisite mental element or intention on part of therespondent.”

In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clearDindication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that therespondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and didnot rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as amatter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide.

22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicideEunder Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct orindirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide andmere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person wouldnot be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions onthe part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and theFallegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expectedto induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step ofcommitting suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty ofabetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of everycase on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in considerationGthe surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on thealleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.

23. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advertto the facts of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offenceunder Section 306 IPC exist, even prima-facie, to continue with theHinvestigations.

24. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mentalpressure because the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him inthe presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school on25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the complainant. Whenhe returned from the school, again he was under very much pressureand on being enquired told that today again he was harassed and insultedby the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was informed that theparents have been called to school next day and this brought him underfurther severe pressure and tension.

25. In the First Information Report and as also the statement ofthe complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for theappellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are anydetails with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by whichthe deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted.

26. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC beforethe High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, whichunfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much lessanalyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in thepetition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to thestudents from 1[st] to 5[th] standard and being a member of the DisciplinaryCommittee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline inthe school which included keeping a watch upon students and overseethat they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same andmoving around in the school premises without permission. It was alsostated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk hisclasses and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a numberof times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classesand moving around the school campus without any cause or permissionand a warning was given to him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunkingclasses and again the appellant issued him a warning and on account ofpersistent act of bunking classes, reported the same to the Principal ofthe School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school.

27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students.It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not beingattentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes ornot attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacheror other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline,in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations ofharassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason.A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indisciplineby a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualitiesof a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigationor intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.B

28. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ an old saying may have lostits relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is notrecognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or schoolauthorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. Itis not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned dutyCunder Section 24 (e) of the Right of Children to Free and CompulsoryEducation Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents andguardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability tolearn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant informationabout the child.D

29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularlybunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts,brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parentson telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has beenattributed to the appellant either in the First Information Report or in theEstatement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been statedin the alleged suicide note. The alleged suicide note only records insofaras, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MYSCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act orinstigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offencefor which he is being charged.F

30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act ofindiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice ofPrincipal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the studentfor the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any studentwho is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacherGbe held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence ofabetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.

31. Our answer to the said question is ‘No’.

32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacherand any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without theirH

being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was anyintention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his ownpupil, no mens rea can be attributed. Thus, the very element of abetmentis conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in the FIR. In theabsence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, theessential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do not exist.

33. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Courtwhile mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC onthe ground that FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court underSection 482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicialpronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power toact ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to preventabuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itselfimposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in itsexercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exerciseof this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested inthe Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferredupon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if itcomes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue wouldbe an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice requirethat the proceeding ought to be quashed.

35. The following observations made by this Court in the case ofState of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors.[7 ]may be relevant tonote at this stage:- “The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles theHigh Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to theconclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue wouldbe an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends ofjustice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. TheHigh Courts have been invested with inherent power, both incivil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary publicpurposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted todegenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The AB

C

D

E

F

G

ACourt observed in this case that ends of justice are higherthan the ends of mere law though justice must be administeredaccording to laws made by the legislature.”

36. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs.Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.[8], this Court observed inBparagraph 7 as under :- “7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecutionat the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be appliedby the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegationsas made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for theCcourt to take into consideration any special features whichappear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedientand in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution tocontinue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot beutilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion ofthe court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,Dtherefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowinga criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while takinginto consideration the special facts of a case also quash theproceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

37. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.[9], thisECourt held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearlydefined and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify anexhaustive list of the cases, where such power should be exercised.However, by way of illustration, the Court laid down the followingcategories of cases wherein such power could be exercised either toFprevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure theends of justice.

“(1) Where the allegations made in the First InformationReport or the complaint, even if they are taken at their facevalue and accepted in their entirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.G(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report andother materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police 8 (1988) 1 SCC 692H9 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335

officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under anorder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)ofthe Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the samedo not disclose the commission of any offence and make outa case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizableoffence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer withoutan order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section155(2)of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noprudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there issufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under whicha criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution andcontinuance of the proceedings and/or where there is aspecific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providingefficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously institutedwith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accusedand with a view to spite him due to private and personalgrudge.”

38. In the case of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr.[10], this Court observed asunder :- “It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow anyaction which would result in injustice and prevent promotionof justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justifiedto quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuanceof it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Athese proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court mayexamine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought tobe quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials toassess what the complainant has alleged and whether anyoffence is made out even if the allegations are accepted inBtoto.”

A

39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minuteexamination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoricdocument, penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the samealso suggests the hyper-sensitive temperament of the deceased whichCled him to take such an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand bythe accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily inducea similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.

40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie,in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out any suchDcircumstances showing any such act or intention that he intended tobring about the suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even thinkthat the appellant had any intention to place the deceased in suchcircumstances that there was no option available to him except to commitsuicide.E41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definitenature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, toask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactlya pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainlysuffer great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegationsof irrelevant nature.F

42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineatedherein above and the legal principles enunciated by a series ofpronouncements of this Court discussed herein above, we are of theview that High Court was not justified in dismissing the application undersection 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Report in exerciseGof its inherent jurisdiction.

43. We are conscious of the pain and suffering of the complainantwho is the mother of the deceased boy. It is also very unfortunate that ayoung life has been lost in this manner, but our sympathies and the painand suffering of the complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy,Hmuch less a criminal prosecution.

44. In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned judgmentof the High Court dated 30.04.2019 cannot be sustained and is herebyset aside. The First Information Report registered as Case No. 162 of2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South), stands quashed.

45. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H