IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 521 of 2005 Miss Jageshwari Singh D/o Shri Gulab Singh Principal, Methodist Girl’s Inter College, Civil Lines Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Versus Petitioner 1. 2. Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Sri Rajendra Kumar Goel S/o late Jai Bhagwan R/o New Adarsh Nagar, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mrs. Monika Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Government Advocate for the State. Along with Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 534 of 2005 Smt. Seema Karanwal @ Seema Manoj Kumar W/o Shri Manoj Jaiswal R/o 239 / 1, 22 Civil Lines Roorkee, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2 3. Sri Rajendra Kumar Goel S/o late Jai Bhagwan Goel R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Roorkee P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Government Advocate for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of these two petitions, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1266 of 2005; State Vs. Reena Gabriel and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. police station Kotwali Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s daughter Neha Goel (deceased) was student of Class IX in Methodist Girl’s Inter College, Civil Lines, Roorkee. She was aged 13 years. On 25.02.2005, she along with her younger sister Swati Goel went to the School. Mrs. Reena Gabriel was her class teacher. Petitioner Mrs. Seema Karanwal @ Seema Manoj Kumar was her 3 mathematics teacher, and petitioner Ms. Jageshwari Singh was the Principal of the College. Allegation of the complainant is that Neha Goel was beaten by her teachers and Principal, and she was given a paper and told that she would be expelled from the School. On that day she did not come back to her home. A first information report was got lodged on 6th of March 2005, by the complainant Rajendra Kumar Goel against the petitioners and Reena Gabriel, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 506, 355, 364 of I.P.C., after a period of nine days. During investigation it was found that Neha Goel had actually committed suicide and her body was found in the nearby canal of Ganges. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the three accused, named in the first information report. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before this Court that it is not a case of abetment of suicide, on the part of the petitioners or any other teacher. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased was poor in academics and her parents insisted her to take Mathematics as a subject. It is further pleaded that the deceased used to slip from the Mathematics class. On the day of incident she was found in the toilet during the period of Mathematics. On being searched, when she was found there, the matter was reported to the Principal and the student (deceased) appears to have been warned and given a withdrawal form which she 4 was required to take to her parents for signatures. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that merely this act on the part of the teachers and the Principal can not be said to be an abetment for commission of suicide by the student. It is argued that there is difference between imposing discipline in the educational Institution and awarding punishment on one hand, and attracting the criminal liability in such matters. Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure – 8 annexed with the Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 521 of 2005, which is copy of the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer. Said report reads as under: “Jheku th] eqdnek mijksDr esa vc rd dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh 'ks"k ugh gS eqdnek mijksDr Fkkuk gktk ij 6&3&05 dks oknh dh rgjhj ij fo#) ts0 flag] lhek o jhuk v/;kfidk eSFkksfZMLV xYlZ b.Vj dkyst esa ntZ gksdj foospuk eq> ,l vkbZ }kjk vR;Ur xgurk o xgjkbZ ls dh x;h rks oknh dh yMdh dq0 usgk xks;y mEkz 13 Ok"kZ tks 9 esa eSFkksfMLV Ldwy esa Ik<rh Fkh ftls eka cki dh bPNk xf.kr fo"k; Ik<kdj dqN cukus dh Fkh dks xf.kr fo"k; flQkfjl ls fnyok fn;k x;k usgk dh fnypLih xf.kr esa ugh Fkh vkSj og dHkh gkse lkbUl ds ?kaVs esa cSBrh rks dHkh Laterine esa fNi tkrh Fkh fn0 25&2&05 dks Hkh og xf.kr ds ?kVsa esa ugh iagqphA ftls eSFk Vhpj lhek }kjk eksuhVj lqjfHk xqIrk }kjk ryk’k djkus ij Dykl Vhpj jhuk xsfo;y }kjk uUnuh uke dh yMdh ls ryk’k djokus ij Laterine esa Nqih dks ysdj iz?kkukpk;Z ts0 flag ds ikl fizafliy vkfQl esa ys tk;k x;k tgka iz/kkukpk;Z }kjk Ik<kbZ ds fy;s MkaVk QVdkjk x;k vkSj Withdrawal 5 Form Fkek;k x;k fd bl ij isjsUVl ds nLr[kr djkdj ykuk vkSj Dykl Vhpj }kjk Dykl #e d{k ds ckgj e; cSx ds [kMk dj fn;k x;kA dq0 usgk ij ,d rjQ parents dk Hkh xf.kr Ik<kus dk ncko Fkk vkSj ;gka Ldwy izcU/ku }kjk mls Vh0Lkh0 FkekbZ x;h dk Hkh lnek usgk cnkZLr ugh dj ldh vkSj xaxugj esa dwndj vkRegR;k dj yhA yk’k 7&3&05 dks cjken gqbZ P.M. ls e`R;q dk dkj.k ikuh esa Mwcdj e`R;q gksuk ik;k x;kA pawfd suicide djuk ,d sudden emotion gksrk gS tks 25&2&05 dks mls gqvk ysfdu 25&2&05 dks eSFk dh Vhpj lhek ds lkeus ugh vkbZ Fkh gkykafd foospuk ls fizafLkiy] eSFk Vhpj] Dykl Vhpj }kjk vkRegR;k dj ysus ds fy;s gh MkaVk x;k] Vh0lh0 nh x;h vkfn ckrsa] foospuk ls izekf.kr ugh gqbZ gS ;g lc Ik<us ds fy;s fd;k x;k Ikk;k x;k gS pwafd iz/kkukpk;Z] Dykl Vhpj }kjk MkVus] Vh0lh0 nsus] dejs ds ckgj [kMk djus ds dkj.k usgk us vkRegR;k dj yh gS vr% ts0 flag] jhuk vkSj lhek dk pkyku /kkjk 306 vkbZ0Ikh0lh0 esa fd;k tkrk gSA” The aforesaid findings of the Investigating Officer, even if taken to be true do not make out an offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Merely scolding the student for her fault and asking her to get out of the classroom or asking her to inform her parents that they should withdraw their child from the school, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute the abetment. 5) On behalf of the petitioners attention of this Court is further drawn to statement of witness Suresh, a Peon of the School, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, copy of which is the part of 6 Annexure –6 annexed with the Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 534 of 2005. Said statement of the witness is being reproduced below: “c;ku Jh lqjs’k pijklh eSFkksfMLV xYlZ bUVj dkfyt #M+dh us iwNus ij crk;k fd rk0 25&2&2005 dks eq>asasasas fizUliy lkgCk us usgk xks;y dh cfgu Lokfr xks;y ds lkFk usgk ds ?kj ;g dgyokus Hkstk Fkk fd usgk xks;y xf.kr ds ?kUVs esa vDlj ugh vkrh gS vkSj Latrine esa fNi tkrh gS vkt Ldwy ls ?kj pyh x;h gSA Ldwy esa ugh gSA usgk dh eka feyh Fkh rks usgk ?kj ij Hkh ugh igqpha Fkh vkSj fizUlhiy us Ldwy esa Parents dks Ldwy esa cqyk;k gSA” The above statement further shows that the Principal and the teachers got sent the message to the parents of the deceased that she is avoiding to attend the Mathematics class and she used to hide in the toilet. The aforesaid Peon has further disclosed that the Principal got sent the message to the parents that they were called by the Principal in the School. This part of statement of aforesaid witness gets corroboration from the statement of Smt. Sapna (mother of the deceased), recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, which is also part of the same Annexure –6, in which she (Sapna) has admitted that on 25.02.2005, in the afternoon, her younger daughter Swati came home along with the Peon. 6) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that even if the evidence collected by the 7 Investigating Officer is taken as true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., are not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, both the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., deserve to be allowed. Both the petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1266 of 2005, State Vs. Reena Gabriel and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., police station Kotwali Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 06, 2010. H. Negi