CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 06, 2008 Kewal Krishan and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioners, Kewal Krishan and Angrej Lal, approached this Court by way of this revision petition, impugning the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, framing a charge against them under Section 306 IPC. Angrej Lal has died during the pendency of this revision petition and accordingly the present revision and the proceedings pending against him would abate. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed this petition qua petitioner No.1, Kewal Krishan. One Parma Singh is the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 2 }: deceased, who committed suicide. There is one decree against one Saun Singh, who died and is survived by four legal heirs, one of which was Parma Singh. Parma Singh had taken his life by committing suicide. This suicide is being attributed to an act of abetment on the part of the petitioner. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that Gurtej Singh, brother of Parma Singh, has lodged this FIR, alleging that his father Saun Singh had sold the crop to Commission Agent i.e. Angrej Ram and his father owned a loan of huge amount to Angrej Ram. He allegedly paid this loan by selling his tractor and thereafter stopped selling his crop through Angrej Ram. After the death of father of the complainant, petitioners, Kewal Krishan and Angrej Lal (since deceased) filed a civil suit for recovery of loan before the Court at Mansa. The Court had issued warrant of attachment. The petitioners had gone to the village of the complainant in connection with attachment but no one came forward to give any bid in this regard. The complainant and his family appear to have filed an appeal in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, which was then pending. It is alleged that the petitioners had given false complaint against the complainant. It is further alleged that whenever the petitioners met the complainant, they talked for selling their land. On this count, it is alleged that Parma Singh, brother of the complainant, stated that he was fed up living the life in this manner and expressed that it was better to die. On 30.6.1999, the complainant heard the noise from his brother and on going to the place, found that Parma Singh was on fire. The complainant made an CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 3 }: attempt to extinguish the fire but Parma Singh died. It is in this background that this case for abetment was registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations contained in the FIR would, by no stretch of imagination, lead to abetment on the part of the petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC. As per the counsel, it is a case where the complainant owed a huge amount of money, which they had taken as a loan and a case of suicide of one of the brother of the complainant has just been pressed into service to escape from the liability of paying this loan. Counsel would say that there is no material to give any indication of abetment on the part of the petitioner to commit an offence under Section 306 IPC. The Court has accordingly not applied its mind to the material on record while framing the charge. Learned State counsel, however, would contend that there is no infirmity seen in the impugned order, which would call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I have considered the facts and the submissions made before me. No doubt, the law is well settled on the aspect that at the stage of framing a charge, the evidence is not to be appreciated to see if it is sufficient for conviction or not and even a prima-facie evidence and material would be enough to frame a charge. At the same time, the courts just can not frame a charge without appreciating if there is any material which would prima-facie reveal CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 4 }: commission of offence. The petitioners have been saddled with the liability to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC, one of whom is no more. The charge for abetment to suicide would be made out only in case the prosecution was able to collect material showing abetment. For the purpose of abetment, the requirement of Section 107 IPC is to be seen. This Section provides 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 in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing, then he is alleged to have abetted the said offence. There is, thus, requirement of a direct nexus within the act complaint and the ultimately effect. The act complaint is filing a suit for recovery of loan. The abetment on the part of the petitioner would be in case there is some direct nexus between the act complaint and the ultimately effect. The ultimate effect is suicide. There is no material in the possession of the prosecution, which would show that this act of suicide was on account of any act or action on the part of the petitioners to seek recovery of loan. If the father of the deceased owed some money to the petitioners, they have exercised their legal right for recovery of that money by filing a civil suit. Availing a legal remedy available to a person can not be termed as instigation or a conspiracy for doing an illegal act or omission or any aiding act or illegal omission. This act on the part of the petitioner could not CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 5 }: expose him to liability of abetment to suicide. Merely because the recovery suit was filed, it can not be said that the petitioner had abetted the late deceased Parma Singh to commit suicide. From the facts and the evidence as collected, no offence of abetment as defined under as defined under Section 107 IPC of suicide committed by the deceased is made out. The Trial Court, as such, has not applied valid consideration to the material on record and the law on the subject to frame a charge against the petitioner in this case. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 266 and Surender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) RCR (Criminal) 558. In the case of Gurdeep Singh (supra), the person has committed suicide when petitioner in that case had tried to have cardinal intercourse with the deceased. This Court viewed that deceased might have felt ashamed on this but it would not lead to an abetment to commit suicide. In the case of Surender Kumar (supra), the allegation was that a gold chain had been stolen or had not been counted for by an employee or apprentice. Attempt to search and interrogate him was made. One or two slaps were also given by the employer to his servant. Finding that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner therein had ever goaded, urged or excited the deceased to jump from a running train, the revision against the charge for abetment to suicide as framed in this case was set-aside. The present case appears to be on much better pedestal. Here there is no direct act alleged against CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 6 }: the petitioner. It is only by implication that the petitioner is sought to be involved for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. As already noticed, taking of legal remedy for recovery of a loan, the petitioner can not be saddled with allegation of abetment to suicide. The charge, as framed, as such, can not be sustained. The revision petition is accordingly accepted. The order framing charge and the subsequent proceedings, therefore, are set- aside. November 06,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE