ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK CRLMC NO. 215 OF 2011 From an order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., (P), Rourkela in G.R. Case No.1903 of 2009. ------------- SIDDHARTH ARORA … Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa …… Opp. Party For petitioner : M/s. S.K.Sahoo, G.Sahoo, D.P.Pattanaik, B.P.Mohant & Y.A. Mohanty. For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P.Mohapatra, Addl. Govt. Advocate. (For O.P.No.1) ----------------------- Decided on 19.12.2011. -------------------------- P R E S E N T : THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. DAS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.M. DAS, J. The petitioner in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the order dated 10.11.2010 of the learned S.D.J.M. (P), Rourkela in G.R. Case No. 1903 of 2009 in taking cognizance of the offence under section 306 I.P.C. and issuance of process against him. 2. On verification of the materials produced, it is seen that the opp. Party no. 2-Subhendra Das lodged the F.I.R. (Annexure-2) before the Inspector –in-Charge, Jhirpani Police Station on 30.10.2009 on the basis of which Jhirpani P.S. Case No. 38 of 2009 was registered. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 18.10.2009 at about 9.45 P.M., while calling his daughter Pragnya Priyadarsini (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) for dinner, the informant and his wife noticed that the deceased had locked her room from inside and did not respond after repeated calling for which the door was broke open and she was found hanging from a fan. The deceased was immediately shifted to I.G.H. Rourkela, where the doctors declared her dead. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the mobile phone which was found from the spot disclosed that the last call was made to the Cell phone No. 9238373635 which belongs to the father of the petitioner. The mobile phone was handed over to the investigating officer on 20.10.3009. The petitioner is alleged to be harassing the deceased since mid of 2007 through different means, i.e., letters, anonymous telephone calls by impersonating himself in different names. One of the letters of the petitioner written in August, 2007 was handed over to the police on 29.10.2009. 3. It is pertinent to note that though the incident took place on 18.10.2009 night, the F. I.R. was lodged only on 30.10.2009. In connection with the death of the deceased, basing on the casualty memo of I.G. Hospital, Rourkela, Jhirpani P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 2009 was registered. The inquest over the dead body was conducted 2 on 19.10.2009 in connection with the said U.D. Case, in presence of the informant, Subhendra Das, and he has written in column no. 9 of the inquest report that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself and that there is no doubt about it. In column no. 10, it has been written that there is no suspicion of any foul play. 4. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted and the doctor found the deceased to be aged about 16 years and found ligature mark around her neck and no other injury was found on her body. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to hanging. 5. During course of inquiry of the U.D. Case, the informant as well as Ansuman Das, the brother of the deceased gave their statements which indicate that the deceased committed suicide inside her bed room and the door was broke open and she was shifted to I.G.H. for treatment where she was declared dead. They have further stated that the deceased had affair with the petitioner for which she committed suicide. After registration of the case on the basis of the F.I.R. submitted by the informant on 30.10.2009, during course of investigation, the family members of the deceased i.e., Subhendra Das –informant, father, mother – Smt. Madhumita Das, grand-father – Debendranath Das, grand-mother, elder brother – Ansuman Das and cousin sister – Amrita Priyadarsini of the deceased respectively were examined and they have stated that the petitioner was harassing the deceased since 2007 for which she was 3 mentally disturbed. There was discussion between both the families over this issue and the petitioner was advised not to harass the deceased. 6. The friends of the deceased, namely, Prachi Nanda and Swayam Prava Pradhan were examined and they stated that the deceased was in love with the petitioner and most of the time, they used to meet each other and talk with each other over mobile phone and that the family members of the deceased were opposing such affair. 7. In the above back-drop, it is to be seen, if this is a fit case, where this Court by exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash the proceeding. 8. It is long settled in law that on accepting all the available materials collected during investigation culminating in a charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agency, if no offence is made out, this Court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceeding in its entirety, as otherwise, it would amount to a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of court. The materials collected, as discussed above, are to be examined as to whether any case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 306 IPC keeping the above position of law in mind. 4 9. Section 306 IPC prescribes the punishment for abetting a suicidal death and provides that a person committing an offence of abetment of suicide can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The basic constituents of an offence under section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. 10. In the case of M.Mohan v. State represented by Dy. S.P. (2011) 48 OCR (SC) 961, the Supreme Court held that “abetment” involves a mental process of investigating 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, offence should not be made out. The deceased was found to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences, which happen in day to day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. (See S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, (2010) 47 OCR (SC) 376 ). In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and another, 1995 SCC (Criminal) 943, the Supreme Court laid down that the words uttered by the accused during quarrel remarking the deceased to go and die and the deceased going home and 5 committing suicide, it cannot be said that the suicide was the direct result of the words uttered inasmuch as the words are casual in nature and nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter and it does not reflect requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events, the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ended his life. 11. In the present case, from the facts, as narrated above, it is clear that the deceased died by committing suicide. However, with regard to the offence of abetment of suicide by the petitioner, in view of the interpretation of law, in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that there is absolutely no prima facie material to show that the petitioner has abetted the suicidal death of the deceased in any manner. The offence under section 306 IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is not at all prima facie made out from the materials collected during the investigation. The learned S.D.J.M. (P) Rourkela, while passing the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence under section 306 IPC against the petitioner and issuing process, has not considered the materials produced along with the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer and, mechanically has taken cognizance of the above offence against the petitioner without due application of judicial mind and issued process. 12. Since there is absolutely no case made out under section 306 IPC against the petitioner, continuance of the criminal 6 proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, ordered that the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1903 of 2009 pending before the learned S.D.J.M. (P), Rourkela stands quashed. 13. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. ……………………. M. M. Das, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. December 19th, 2011/Biswal 7 8 9