* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 157 : 2024 INSC 172
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra
v.
The State of U.P. & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No.(s). 1397 of 2024)
05 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused
appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal
case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule
Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide –
Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary
ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by
the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and
bothered by the style of functioning of the appellant-District
Saving Officer and of the Chief Development Officer and
thus, was left with no option but to end his life, and was also
bothered by the pressure of working in two districts – Criminal
proceedings against the appellant for the offences punishable
u/s. 306 and s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Application by the
appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings –
Rejected by the High Court – Justification:
Held: Prosecution of the appellant for the offence u/s.3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted since from the
admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary ingredients
of the offence u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out –
Prosecution case is entirely based on the suicide note left behind
by the victim before committing suicide – On a minute perusal of the
suicide note, the contents thereof do not indicate any act or omission
on the part of the appellant which could make him responsible for
abetment as defined u/s. 107 – Suicide note clearly shows that
the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and
was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his
official duties – Necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment
to commit suicide are not made out from the chargesheet – Thus,
allowing prosecution of the appellant is grossly illegal for the offences
158 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
punishable u/s.306 and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamounts to
gross abuse of process to law – Also, investigating agency itself
proposed a closure report in the matter after conducting thorough
investigation – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court
and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant in the
criminal case pending, quashed and set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 22-25]
Case Law Cited
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra,
[2000] 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 3 SCC 557; Netai Dutta v.
State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659; M. Mohan v. State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
[2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Suicide; Suicide note; Caste; Act or omission;
Frustrated on account of work pressure.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1397
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No.12691 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., Danish Zubair Khan, Ajeet Pandey, Dr.
Lokendra Malik, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ankit Goel, Ram Shiromani Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 2022
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 159
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12691 of 2015 filed by the accused
appellant herein under Section 482 of Court of Criminal Procedure,
1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’).
3. By way of the said application, the accused appellant sought
quashing of proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 6476 of 2005
pending against him in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Farrukhabad for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’)
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter being referred
to as ‘SC/ST Act’).
4. The case aforesaid came to be registered on the basis of a chargesheet filed by the investigating agency pursuant to investigation of
C.C. No. 516/2002 P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad.
5. The accused appellant herein was working as the District Savings
Officer in Kannauj District. It is alleged that one Data Ram(deceased),
posted as Senior Clerk, Child Welfare Board, Fatehgarh, committed
suicide on 3rd October, 2002 by consuming a poisonous substance
in his own house. The deceased wrote a suicide note before ending
his life.
6. The dead body of the Data Ram was recovered lying in his house, i.e.
Mohalla Gwal Toli, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad. FIR No. 249/2002
came to be registered at P.S. Kotwali, Fatehgarh on the basis of the
suicide note left behind by the deceased for the offences punishable
under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
7. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed a
closure report. Later on, investigation was re-opened and Chargesheet No. 253 of 2002 came to be filed against the accused appellant
for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act.
8. The suicide note written by the deceased which forms the basis of
the FIR and the charge-sheet is reproduced hereinbelow for the
sake of ready reference: -
“The learned District Magistrate
It is hereby informed that on 1.10.2002 in night time at
8 ‘O’ Clock, the District Savings Officer Kannauj Shri
160 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Prabhat Mishra made telephonic call to me and even
got my conversations done from Chief Development
Officer, Kannauj and told that you come to Kannauj on
2.10.2002 in morning at 11 O’ Clock and meet me and
some information has to be prepared. On 2.10.2002, at
10 O’Clock, I went to District Social Welfare Officer for
obtaining permission to go to Kannauj, then he directed
me to not go to Kannauj. When, it has already been written
to the District Savings Officer that you call your record,
then, you do not need to go there. Thereafter, I returning
back to the Office, started performing official work. In noon
time at 12.30 O’ Clock, the Chief Development Officer,
gave me information on telephone that you leave all your
work and go to Kannauj and meet the learned District
Magistrate. I immediately reached Kannauj by Scooter,
where, at 2:15 O’ Clock, I went the bungalow of District
Magistrate, where, it was told that the learned District
Magistrate has departed and you please meet the District
Savings Officer Prabhat Mishra, then, I went to Shri
Mishra at 2:45 O’ Clock, then, he continued sitting me in
his Office till 5:30 O’ Clock and told me that the learned
District Magistrate has not sit till now and we will go from
here at 5 O’clock. At 5:30 O’ Clock, Shri Mishra had taken
me to the Chief Development Officer Shri Shashidhar
Dwivedi. Conversation of Shri Mishra had already taken
place previously with CDO Sahab. The CDO Sahab
asked that why the pension of 327 widows has not been
distributed yet, then I replied that due to non-availability
of their bank accounts, it could not have been distributed.
On this, he, while using very indecent words, used odd
words against me very much and that I am unable to give
full particulars of above. He told me that even after my
call, you did not come to me, have you become a very big
governor. Further says that DM Sahab has refused to go
there and thereat, he keeps filling the Officers a lot and
does not want to perform work and even everything was
told about Suspension and other things. Thereafter, Shri
Mishra had taken me at the residence of learned District
Magistrate from where, I was called at 7:30 O’clock. After
making me aware about the information, the respected
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 161
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
sir asked me reason for not coming to Kannauj, then, I
made him aware about the situation.
Sir, it is requested that I, even after the fact that the post
of District Probation Officer is lying vacant, am executing,
and discharging my duties diligently with honesty and full
devotion. Due to non-availability of my Officers in two
districts, now, it is beyond my control to perform work with
two different Officers. Sir, it was told by you that to not
go to Kannauj and discharge your duty of Farrukhabad
smoothly, but, I was suddenly given order to go to Kannauj
that you leave all the work and come to Kannauj and then,
I have already sent the information on 1.10.2002, to the
District Economics and Statistics Officer, Kannauj, where
it was available, but, I was called only for insulting me.
Even I also understand this fact that during my lifetime,
duties of both the Districts will not be discharged and I
will continuously grinding in between two Officers equally.
So, for avoiding from the torture of Shri Prabhat Mishra
and Shri Shashidhar Dwivedi, Chief Development Officer,
I am sacrificing my life, so that, I, while visiting Kannauj,
may not be compelled to be harassed till now, I have
not been insulted and harassed by any learned District
Magistrate/ Chief Development Officer, in this manner
and all the Officers have appreciated my duties and work.
With touching feet with respect, please forgive me. With
best regards.”
9. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid suicide note is the only foundation
of the charge-sheet filed against the accused appellant. The accused
appellant approached the High Court by filing an application under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings
of the criminal case registered against him. The said application
was rejected vide order dated 26th July 2022 which is challenged
in this appeal.
10. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused
appellant contended that even if the allegations as set out in the suicide
note are taken to be true on their face value, the same do not constitute
the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and hence, it is a fit
case wherein the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed.
162 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. Learned senior counsel contended that from the admitted allegations
as set out in the aforesaid suicide note (supra), no inference can
be drawn that the appellant in any manner, instigated or abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. At best, what can be inferred from
the suicide note (supra) is that the deceased was frustrated and
bothered by the style of functioning of the appellant herein and of
Shashidhar Dwivedi, CDO, and thus he felt that he was left with no
option but to end his life. He also seems to have been bothered by
the pressure of working in two districts and took the extreme step
of ending his life being unable to withstand the pressure.
12. Learned senior counsel further urged that all proceedings sought
to be taken against the appellant as a consequence of the charge
sheet, deserve to be quashed as the same amount to an abuse of
process of the Court.
13. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Goel, learned standing counsel for the State
of Uttar Pradesh has opposed the submissions advanced by the
learned senior counsel representing the accused appellant.
14. Learned counsel for the State urged that the appellant and Shashidar
Dwivedi, CDO being the superior officers of the deceased, harassed
and humiliated him to such an extent that he was left with no
option but to end his life. The allegations set out in the suicide note
constitute the necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide.
Thus, it is not a fit case warranting interference in the well-reasoned
order passed by the High Court refusing to interfere and quash the
proceedings of the criminal case registered against the appellant.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
16. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the prosecution of
the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/
ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted because it is nowhere the
case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence
under IPC was committed by the appellant upon the deceased on
the basis of his caste.
17. This Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v.
State of Maharashtra1 considered this issue and held as under:-
1 [2000] 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 3 SCC 557
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 163
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
“9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property on the ground that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the
present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that
the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on
the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim
should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal
Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such
a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter,
we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed
the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court
as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.”
18. Thus, from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary
ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are
not made out so as to justify prosecution of the accused appellant
for the said offence.
19. The parameters required to bring an act or omission by the person
charged within the purview of the offence under Section 306 IPC
have been elaborated by this Court time and again and a few of
these judgments are quoted below for ready reference.
20. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.2 in almost similar
circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings sought to be
taken against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The relevant
observations from the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
2 (2005) 2 SCC 659
164 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s M.L.
Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of his employment,
he had been posted at various worksites of the Company
and on 11-9-1999 he was transferred to the worksite of
the Company’s stores located at 160, B.L. Saha Road,
Kolkata. It seems that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab
Kumar Nag did not join duty and after a period of about two
years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his own
hand wherein he expressed his grievance of stagnancy of
salary and also alleged that he was a victim of unfortunate
circumstances. The Company accepted his resignation
with immediate effect. On 16-2-2001, a dead body was
found at the railway tracks near Ballygunge Railway Station
and it was revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar
Nag. His brother went to the office where Pranab Kumar
Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body of
Pranab Kumar Nag was released to his brother after the
post-mortem examination on 19-2-2001. After a period
of two months, a complaint was lodged before the police
post on the basis of a suicide note allegedly recovered
from the dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag. Based on the
complaint, a case was registered against the appellant
and some others. A translated copy of the suicide note is
produced before us by the appellant. We have carefully
read the alleged suicide note. The substance of this
suicide note is that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag alleged
that appellant Netai Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee
engaged him in several wrongdoings (he has shown as a
type of torture) and at the end of the letter, a reference is
also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and Netai Dutta alleging
that he reported certain incidents to them. A reading of
the letter would show that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag
was not very much satisfied with the working conditions
in the office. In the letter he has stated that he had to be
at the workplace sometimes throughout the day and night
and he had to remain in the company of some drivers who
had been sometimes in drunken condition at about one
o’clock or two o’clock in the night. It is also alleged that
the drivers who had been present at the workplace had
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 165
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
been having non-vegetarian food. He also complained that
he had to work even on Sundays. He further stated that
one day he could leave the workplace at 8 o’clock in the
evening and all the restaurants were closed and that he
reported the matter to the present appellant.
5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide
note that the present appellant had caused any harm to
him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying
salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the
deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working
conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed
that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never
joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and
had absented himself for a period of two years and that
the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said
that the present appellant had in any way instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the
suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section
306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the
commission of the crime. The parameters of “abetment”
have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code,
1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing
of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or
engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or
the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal
omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any
wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within
the contours of “abetment”.
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act
or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to
have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally
aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the
appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy,
166 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission
of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation
made by the complainant that the appellant herein in
any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag.
The case registered against the appellant is without any
factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide
note do not in any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant
would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single
Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information
report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a
cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to
proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is
a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked.
We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the
appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.”
21. In the case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police3
, this Court held as below:-
“36. We would like to deal with the concept of “abetment”.
Section 306 of the Code deals with “abetment of suicide” which
reads as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
37. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal
Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and
requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means
“killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the
means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
3 [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 167
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence
considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach
of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
39. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under Section 107
of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107,
which reads as under:
“107.Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of
a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.”
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section
107 reads as under:
Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
40. The learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another
judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2001) 9 SCC 618], in which a three- Judge Bench of this Court
had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a
dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband
uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever
you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar
committed suicide.
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9
SCC 618 has examined different shades of the meaning of
“instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
168 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
wherefrom an inference of the appellantaccused having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant’s
wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], this
Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court should
be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances
of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim
had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual
in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the
Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
be found guilty.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] had an occasion to deal with this
aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning
of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that
there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern
is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 169
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to
lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he/she committed suicide.
46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 361] this Court has held that when prima facie no case
is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought
to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and
quashed the complaint.
47. In a recent judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan Singh
v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628], this Court quashed
the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the
allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that
the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation,
there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is
also no proximate link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when
the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with
the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18-1-2005.
Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The
deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In
a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon.
Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to
person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and
self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same
170 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had
taken place in the family. But the question that remains to be
answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that
unfortunate incident in any manner?
49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and
the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely
arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotely
connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may
be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the
husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3)
are pending adjudication.
******
62. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, gave the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this
Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 171
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/
or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
*****
65. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122] observed thus : (SCC p.
128, para 8)
“8. ... It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers,
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds
that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence
172 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine
the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be
quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.”
*****
68. In the light of the settled legal position, in our considered
opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition
filed by the appellants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the
charges under Section 306 IPC against them. The High Court
ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the appellants
who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section
306 IPC should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles
of a criminal trial. As a result, the charges under Section 306
IPC against the appellants are quashed.”
22. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case is entirely based on
the suicide note left behind by the deceased before committing
suicide. On a minute perusal of the suicide note, we do not find that
the contents thereof indicate any act or omission on the part of the
accused appellant which could make him responsible for abetment
as defined under Section 107 IPC.
23. We have minutely perused the suicide note (reproduced supra)
which clearly shows that the deceased was frustrated on account
of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors
unconnected to his official duties. He was also feeling the pressure
of working in two different districts. However, such apprehensions
expressed in the suicide note, by no stretch of imagination, can be
considered sufficient to attribute to the appellant, an act or omission
constituting the elements of abetment to commit suicide. The facts
of the case at hand are almost identical to the case of Netai Dutta
(supra). Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the necessary
ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are not
made out from the chargesheet and hence allowing prosecution
of the appellant is grossly illegal for the offences punishable under
Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamounts
to gross abuse of process to law.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 173
Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
24. It may be noted that in the first instance, the investigating agency itself
proposed a closure report in the matter after conducting thorough
investigation. In this background, we are of the opinion that there
do not exist any justifiable ground so as to permit the prosecution
of the appellant for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
25. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court and all
proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant in the criminal
case pending for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are hereby quashed and set aside.
26. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
