MUNSHIRAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC. on 9 April 2018

MUNSHIRAM

v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 515-516 of 2018)

APRIL 09, 2018

[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of –Quashing of FIR alleging abetment of suicide – FIR lodged againstrespondents by the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter-in-law and her family harassed his son and the entire family whichultimately led him committing suicide – As per the FSL report, thehandwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present in thesuicide note had similarities – High Court quashed the FIR on theground that the alleged offence of abetment of suicide was not madeout – On appeal, held: s.482 has to be utilized cautiously whilequashing the FIR – In the instant case, High Court prematurelyquashed the FIR – The court abridged the investigation whichneeded to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the FIRconcerning the existence or non-existence of any prior mentalcondition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide – Since,the enquiry was pending and there were aspects which requiredinvestigation, impugned order is set aside – Investigating Authoritiesdirected to complete investigation – Penal Code 1860 – s.306 –Investigation.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court has prematurely quashed theFIR without proper investigation being conducted by the Police.This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comesto a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases wouldonly amount to abuse of the process. The FSL report categoricallystates that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwritingas present in the suicide note has similarities. The enquiry waspending and there are aspects which may require investigation,the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itselfwithout allowing the investigation to proceed. The reasons

847

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aprovided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factualassertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of thedeceased and reasons for committing suicide cannot be acceptedbecause acceptance of the said would not be in consonance withthe settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of CrPC. Theinvestigative authorities are directed to complete the investigationBwith promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion. [Paras11, 12, 13 and 15][851-E-G; 853-A-B, D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 515-516 of 2018.

CFrom the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S. B. CriminalMisc. Petitions Nos. 2372 of 2014 and 3508 of 2014.

Manish K. Bishnoi, Devansh Srivastava, Ms. Ila Haldia, Advs.for the Appellant.

DR. S. Suri, Sr. Adv., Pashupati Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,Milind Kumar, Varun Khanna (For Avinash Kumar), Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.E

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order,dt. 15.04.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2372of 2014 and 3508 of 2014, wherein the High Court quashed the FIR No.318 of 2013 filed under Section 306 of IPC.F

3. Before we analyse the case at hand, it would be necessary toobserve the facts of this case which gave rise to the aforesaid FIR. Thedeceased son of the Appellant herein (Brijesh Singh) got married toRespondent no. 2 - wife (Khushboo) on 10.2.2008. From the aforesaidwedlock, the couple were blessed with a male child on 29.10.2009. It isGto be noted that the wife on previous occasions had filed multiplecomplaints against her husband which were ultimately compromised.Moreover, the husband had also filed a complaint dt. 13.7.2010 allegingatrocities committed by her and her family on the deceased and hisfamily. On 7.03.2013, Respondent- wife instituted another proceeding H

H

against the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was under a constantfear of arrest and harassment because of false implication in criminalcase. Thereafter a compromise is said to have been entered into betweenthe deceased and the respondent - wife, wherein he had promised not torepeat any of the aforesaid occurrences. Thereafter, Respondent againfiled an FIR No. 152 of 2013 against the deceased and the Petitionerunder Sections 147, 323, 341 and 351 of IPC. It may not be out ofcontext to mention here that the Respondent - wife also filed a domesticviolence case against the deceased son of the appellant. It is alleged thaton 8.7.2013, due to continuous humiliation and suffering inflicted uponby the wife and the accused persons, the Appellant’s son (Brijesh Singh)committed suicide. Before committing the suicide, the deceased is saidto have written two suicide notes which needs to be recorded herein.

Suicide Note 1

My wife Khushboo and his parents and family members sinceafter marriage are threatening me and my family saying that weare dacoits and we will kill you and also have filed false cases ofdowry and domestic violence. My wife Khushboo has got an illicitrelation with Rajkumar the 2[nd] son of SI Gajadhar living in herneighbourhood and Rajesh Aggarwal and son of Fawji and others also keep on facilitating / helping them.

My wife, my in-laws and these boys are intending to grab thefactory and house of my parents, this is why they keep on torturingus and do not allow me and my parents to meet my son. Me andmy parents are in deep agony since after my marriage. The totalinvestment in the factory is done by my father and I have notcontributed any penny. I love my wife and my child very muchbut she do not have any affection either for me and my parentsso, her parents keep on threatening us and keep on filing falsecomplaint and are trying to grab the house and factory byimplicating my parents and my sister in false cases (sic)

(redaction supplied)

Suicide Note 2

My wife Khushboo under the influence of Rajkumar the 2[nd] sonof SI Gajodhar living in her neighbourhood, Rajesh Aggarwal, herparents and other in-laws has got filed a false case against me,my parents and my sisters. Due to which I am in deep mental A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Astress. I am committing suicide. All these are conspiring to grabthe house and factory of my parents. My parents are old and theymay kindly be helped. The complete investment in the factory isdone by my father after his retirement. I do not have anycontribution in it. My wife wants to flee away to Delhi aftergrabbing all these and every day she keeps abusing us and alsoBthreatens to get us killed. She does not let us meet my son. I havealways loved my wife. She has always betrayed me. She may beremoved from the house of my parents. Safety of my parents beensured (sic)

(redaction supplied)

C

4. In this context an FIR was lodged by the appellant under Section306 of IPC against the Respondent-wife and her family members allegingthat they harassed his son which ultimately lead to him committing suicide.

5. On 11.03.2014, the Police reported to the trial court, wherein itDwas stated that the suicide notes were found to be matching thehandwriting of the deceased as reported by forensic science laboratory.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR being registered against theaccused Respondents, they filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPCbefore the High Court for quashing of the FIR No. 318 of 2013 for theoffences of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC.E

7. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dt.15.04.2015, quashed the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the allegedoffence of abetment of suicide was not made out in this case. It wouldbe relevant to note the reasoning of the High Court before we furtherproceed with the discussion of this case:F

a. That the Court was of the opinion that the suicide notes makesreference to various litigation and criminal complaints whichwere a result of actions of the deceased and were not filedwith a view to harass him.

Gb. The allegation concerning the adultery by the respondent - wifehas not been evidenced by any material on record.

c. The bad behaviour and alcoholism of the deceased has beencategorically admitted in the compromise affidavit.

d. That the allegations contained in the suicide note did not revealHthe ingredients of abetment or instigation of suicide.

e. That there is nothing to show the intention of the accused toinstigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

f.That the suicide notes admit depression on the part of thedeceased so as to commit suicide.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the father of the deceased(appellant herein) approached this Court through this Special LeavePetition.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently contended that the quashing of the FIR at the thresholdlevel without allowing the police to investigate the matter cannot besustained as it was pre-mature. He has further relied on the status reportas well as the FSL report to portray that there was a prima facie casefor continuing the investigation.

10. Per contra, the counsel on behalf of the respondents hassupported the impugned judgment and contended that the suicide wasthe deceased’s own doing and the respondents in both cases were beyondany blame as the litigation foisted upon the deceased were solelyattributable to his own actions and behaviour.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties andperusing the material available on record we are of the opinion that theHigh Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without proper investigationbeing conducted by the Police. Further, it is no more res integra thatSection 482 of CrPC has to be utilized cautiously while quashing theFIR. This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comesto a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would onlyamount to abuse of the process. In this case at hand, the court abridgedthe investigation which needed to ascertain certain factual assertionsmade in the FIR concerning the existence or non-existence of any priormental condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide.

12. We are apprised of the FSL report which categorically statesthat the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present inthe suicide note has similarities. Further, the status report filed beforethe High Court notes as under:

During investigation, after receiving information of the deceasedBrijesh Singh from the hospital and after recording death FIR 15/

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13 under section 174 CrPC, investigation was started. Handwritingwas recovered from the place of incident during inspection, whichwas identified by the complainant as the handwriting of his sonand same was taken into custody. Statements under section 161CrPC of complainant Munshi Ram, witnesses Sh. Ajay Kumar,Hakam Singh, Smt. Ombati, Smt. Rekha, Smt. Meena, Smt.BPushpa, and Sh. Sher Singh were recorded. Thereafter, MunshiRam got registered FIR No. 318/2013. The post-mortem andpanchayatnama of the deceased was done and during this, writtenunsigned note was recovered from the half pant of the deceasedand the same was also taken into possession. The post-mortemCof the dead body of the victim was conducted. The clothes wornby the deceased were taken into custody and the dead body washanded over to the family members for last rites. On 3.8.2013,the file was forwarded to Ld. ACC, Sadar for further investigationwho sent the suicide note to FSL for examination. Call details ofthe suspect were obtained and on 17.2.2014, the main file wasDentrusted to Ld. AACP, Vaishali Nagar. FSL Report with regardto suicide note was obtained by him. On 18.2.2014, case file wassent to Deputy Commissioner for further investigation who tookstatements of Smt. Shrawni Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Kalawati,Smt. Radha Agarwal, Smt. Manju Chowdhary, Shri DeepakshiE@ Charu, Shri Harish Agarwal under section 161 CrPC. Basedon the investigation carried out as per the order no 8225-27 ofDCP in case no 318/13 by the Deputy Commissioner and basedon the evidence available on record, it is established that Accusedpersons (1) Khushboo (2) Dharampal (3) Smt. Sushila (4) HawaSingh have committed offence under section 306 IPC. AccusedFSmt. Khushboo W/o Brijesh Singh D/o Dharampal Singh casteBawaria, Age 25 years, Sushila W/o Shri Dharampal Singh casteBawaria, Age 43 years and Dharampal Sing S/o late Shri RamSingh caste Bawaria, Age 45 years were arrested in this case.

Remaining enquiry.G

Accused Hawa Singh could not be arrested since he wasabsconding and since 8.8.2014, the Hon’ble High Courthas stayed the investigation.

The Status Report of facts is being sent to you.

H

(emphasis supplied)

13. In light of the fact that the enquiry was pending and there areaspects which may require investigation, we are of the considered opinionthat the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itselfwithout allowing the investigation to proceed. We cannot agree with thereasons provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factualassertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of the deceasedand reasons for committing suicide because acceptance of the said wouldnot be in consonance with the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 ofCrPC as laid down by various judgments of this Court.

14. It would be relevant to note that any observation made hereinshould not be taken as observations on merits and we direct theinvestigative authority as well as the court to consider the matter on itsown merits uninfluenced by any observation herein.

15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and direct theinvestigative authorities to complete the investigation with promptnessand to take it to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, these appeals areallowed.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H