Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.9.2011. Ashok Kumar Kothari and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the order dated 25.10.2006 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against them under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question had been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR No. 189 of 2005 under Section 406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kala Chowki, Mumbai against the deceased and his wife by the petitioners. At the time of the death of deceased Ravinder Shoor, no objection was raised by his family members. However, the FIR in question had been registered after 45 days of Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) -2 - his death on the statement of the brother of the deceased. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased had put an end to his life by jumping in front of a running train. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The prosecution story in brief is that Ravinder Shoor was the brother of the complainant Mohinder Kumar. The deceased was running the business with Ashok Kumar Kothari and his wife. The petitioners were illegally demanding ` 40,00,000/- from Ravinder Shoor and his wife and had got registered a false criminal case against them. On 20.10.2005, Ruby @ Alka Shoor was arrested in the said case. The petitioners started threatening the deceased that as and when he would come to Mumbai for grant of bail to his wife, then he would not return back. The petitioner Ashok Kothari alleged that he had paid ` 4,00,000/- as Supari for killing Ruby or her husband. The FIR in question was lodged on 02.12.2005. The petitioner No.1, on the other hand, had lodged FIR No. 189 dated 11.10.2005 at Police Station Kala Chowki, Mumbai against the deceased Ravinder @ Vicky Shoor and his wife Rubi Shoor under Section 406, 34 IPC. In the said FIR it was alleged by the complainant that on 04.10.2005, he had given a gold bar to Ravinder Shoor and his wife Ruby Shoor weighing 3600 grams for preparing gold ornaments. On 05.10.2005, another gold bar of 24 Carat gold valuing about ` 38,00,000/- was given to Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) -3 - Ravinder Shoor and his wife for preparation of gold ornaments. However, Ravinder Shoor and his wife had failed to do the needful and had rather fled away with the gold, entrusted to them, for preparation of ornaments. Thus, the FIR was got registered by the petitioner No.1 against the deceased and his wife on 11.10.2005. Ruby Shoor was arrested in the said case. Thereafter, Ravinder Shoor committed suicide on 21.10.2005 by jumping before a running train. No objection was raised at that time by the relatives of the deceased. However, on 02.12.2005, the FIR in question was lodged by the brother of the deceased. Apparently, the FIR in question had been lodged by the brother of the deceased as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the deceased and his wife. The petitioners were demanding return of the gold or its price to them which had been handed over by them to the deceased and his wife. Since the deceased and his wife had failed to return back the gold, entrusted to them for preparation of ornaments, the petitioners had taken recourse to law and had got registered an FIR against them. In the said case, wife of the deceased was arrested. Since the petitioners had taken recourse to law, it cannot be said that they had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased-Ravinder Shoor. Apparently, the brother of the deceased in order to put pressure on the petitioners qua the FIR got registered against the deceased and his wife, has lodged the FIR in question after about 1½ months of the death of his brother. Section 107 IPC reads as under:- “Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) -4 - 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 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 said to instigate the doing of that thing. As per Section 306 IPC, if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of suicide shall be liable for punishment under the said provision. Abtment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to have been made out. Thus, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit suicide. However, in the present case, it appears that the deceased had committed suicide in order to escape his liability or face criminal proceedings qua the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.1 against him. Since the petitioners had taken recourse to law, it cannot be said that they were guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings Crl. Revision No. 2584 of 2006 (O&M) -5 - against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.10.2006 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are discharged. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 Gurpreet