JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Admit.
2. The petitioner by this Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2000 seeks an order quashing the order dated 19.4.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioner under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are that upon a DD entry lodged in the Police Station regarding the incident of suicide, the police reached the spot at the factory No. C.S. SMA where they found on the second floor in the godown of the factory body of one person, namely, Rajesh Kumar, lying with the plastic rope tied around its neck and the other end of the rope was fixed to a hook to the roof. On search of the body, a suicide note was lying which stated:
"I, Rajesh Kumar s/o Ram Chand R/o AG240, Shalimar Bagh, Ph: 7135502 and I work in R.P. Wool Co. Pvt. Ltd. at C4, SMA. I on my own will wanted to leave my job to work on my own. My employer Mr. H.L. Jain had got me involved in a false case and forcibly got a note executed for misappropriation by me of around Rs. 37621 and had threatened me to get my family killed by Sudama Pehalwan who works for them if I did anything against them. I have no evidence to prove my innocence. H.L. Jain (Hira Lal Jain) is responsible for my situation. He has forced me to take wrong steps. His phone No. 7244163, 7133517, 7525250, 2525983.
I have been working in D.P. Wool since 1992. Most of sale transation of ready made articles is not shown on record and on this sale, tax is not paid to the government, in the same way in the ale transaction of wool, the date is not put on the receipts. (This fact is known to me and H.L.Jain; it is not known to the other staff) and the actual cash is not shown on receipts and, however, I don't know why it is done. I am being implicated because I wanted to leave the job and I did not agree to stay despite his request. Entire staff does not know the reality that is why they take me a lier. In order to save the tax, the entire staff is asked to sign on the register of D.P. Spinning despite we work in the showroom of D.P. Wool Pvt. Ltd.
3. On basis of the DD entry, a case under Section 306 of the Code was registered and challan filed upon which charges against the accused were framed vide order dated 19.4.1999. The challenge to the order dated 19.4.1999 is on the ground that upon perusal of the material available with the Court, the charge under Section 306 IPC could not be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through a large number of judgments in Pradeep S. Ahluwalia Vs. The State 1999 Crl.L.J. 4145 (Delhi), Ghansham Dass Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (4) Crimes 372, Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 Crl.L. 894 (SC), Chanchal Kumari and Others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, , State of Gujarat Vs. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and others, 1999 Crl. L.J. 736, V. Adinarayana and another Vs. State of A.P., 2000 Crl.L.J. 1182, Alka Grewal Vs. State of M.P., 2000 Crl.L.J. 672, Laxmi & Anr. Vs. State, . The dicta of all the judgments appears to be that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and statement of witness recorded in support of the same taken on their face value, does not make out a case against the accused and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused, then the proceedings ought to be quashed. The powers of the High Court to act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have also been clearly spelt out in M/s Pepsi Food Limited & Ors. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 where it was held "No doubt, the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless. But that should not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceedings quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial."
4. Further, the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. Therefore, according to me, if there is no material on record to show that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code were made out, such proceedings are liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines the expression 'abetment' and the definition of abetment reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who FirstInstigates any person to do that thing; or, Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is aid to instigate the doing of that thing.
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."
5. From a reading of the clause 'Firstly' of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that a person who instigates another to do a thing, abets him to do that thing. A person is said to instigate another when he goads, provokes, incites, urges forward or encourage another to commit a crime. A serious question that has arisen in this case is whether there is any material suggesting that the petitioner had incited the deceased to commit suicide? The fact that a suicide note was recovered and from the contents thereof it certainly cannot be said that the petitioner had goaded, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. There being no material on record to show that the ingredients of the offence of abetment have been satisfied the framing of charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was bad in law.
6. For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no material on record for framing of charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Consequently, I allow the Criminal Revision Petition No. 274 of 2000 and quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.4.2000.
7. The petition is disposed of.
p class="centerAlign">