Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.02.2009 Yash Kumar Arora and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Animash Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Yash Kumar Arora as well as his brother Surinder Kumar Arora under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.246 dated 8.11.2008 registered at Police Station Bhulath, District Kapurthala under Section 306 of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings. The facts in brief are that Chetan Bajaj made statement stating that “We are two brothers and one sister. I along with my brother Sunil Bajaj run the shop of Commission Agent at Bhatha Bazar. Before the purchase of paddy by the Government, Yashpal Arora and Surinder Kumar Arora son of Bhagat Ram Arora resident of Ward No.7 Bhulath, owners of Bharat Rice Mill, Bhulath kept their paddy crop in their sheller through our shop of Commission Agent by saying that paddy crop was required to be Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -2- sold at the rate fixed by the government through your sheller and we are taking the same away and that the payment of the same would be made in the account of the government through official account. But after the purchase of paddy crop, the aforesaid owner of sheller, neither got the paddy crop entered in the account of the government nor got made payment of the same through official account. When we asked them to make the payment through official account of the government, the aforesaid persons assured us that they would make payment of us, which was approximately to the tune of Rs.13 lacs, but they did make any payment to us out of the said payment. When we asked them about the same, they refused to make payment. As a result of it, our business had suffered to a great extent. The Zimidars were visiting us and demanding their money back from us daily. Today, I along with my brother Sunil Bajaj and partner Jagdish Kumar son of Munshi Ram resident of Ward No.4 Bhulath went to the sheller to get our money back from Yashpal and Surinder Kumar owners of Bharat Rice Mill, Bhulath. At that time, it would be around 2:30/ 3:00 P.M, when both the aforesaid brothers were found present in the above said sheller. They refused to pay back our amount. They turned us out of their sheller forcibly and insulted us. They said that they did not owe anything to us and that they can do whatever they can do by approaching anybody of their choice. At this, my brother Sunil Bajaj was upset to a great extent and due to the said frustration, he consumed some poisonous substance. When I came to know about it, I along with my partner Jagdish Kumar made an arrangement for vehicle and took my brother Sunil Bajaj to Berry Hospital, Jallandahr to save him. As the condition of my brother was serious, so they did not admit him and advised us to take him to CMC, Loudhiana. We were taking my Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -3- brother to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, where my brother succumbed to his injuries on the way just ahead of Rama Mandi, Jallandhar. After taking his dead body, we were coming back to Bhulath where you (referring to ASI Goldy Virdi) met us on the way near Kartarpur. My brother Sunil Bajaj was upset on account of insult meted out to him by the owners of sheller and on account of refusal regarding payment of money of paddy and due to it, he had consumed some poisonous substance and died.” That the case of the petitioners does not fall under any of the clauses provided under Section 107 of IPC. In the present case, commission of suicide was not instigated by the present petitioners in any manner. Even if the allegations are believed to be true, these relate to commercial dispute between the parties. The mere non-payment of money will not coerce a normal man to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, the present petitioners had nothing to do with the death of the deceased and have been falsely implicated due to professional rivalries. That in the present case, both the parties have entered into a compromise due to intervention of respectables. The misguided suspicion on the basis of which the complainant party got registered the FIR has been cleared. In these premises, the afore-referred FIR may be quashed. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners initially urged that a glance through Annexure P.4 would reveal that the parties have compromised the matter and that being so, in view of the ratio decidendi laid down by this Court in re: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 1052 and Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2008 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 1034, the FIR may be quashed. Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -4- I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. In re: Manoj Sharma v. State and others, 2008(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 827, the Apex Court has held as under:- “There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable.” Adverting to the instant case, needless to say, the FIR has been registered under Section 306 of IPC. In terms of Manoj Sharma's case (supra), this FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. At this juncture, Mr. Ahluwalia urged with great eloquence that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC and that being so, even on merits this FIR is liable to be quashed. To drive home this point, he has relied upon Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 AIR (SC) 1998, Bhagwan Dass v. Kartar Singh and others, 2007 AIR (SC) 2045, Paramjeet Singh Chawala v. State of M.P., 2007 Criminal Law Journal 3343, Ram Naresh and another v. State of MP and others, 2002 (3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 52, Kartar Singh and others v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2006 Criminal Law Journal 4099. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -5- submissions. In the semantics of Section 107 of IPC abetment means that a person abets the doing of a thing, if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; 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 an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. In a nutshell, the allegations in the FIR are that the deceased was upset on account of insult meted out to them by the petitioners apart from refusal to make the payment of paddy. To be noticed is as to whether these allegations fit in with the above referred ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. Firstly, there are no allegations to the effect that the petitioners had instigated the deceased to do a particular thing. Secondly, there are no allegations in the terms that the petitioners had intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The act of offering insult or refusal to pay money independently or individually or collectively do not fall within the ambit of abetment. The allegations of conspiracy are not there. In re: Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the quarrel ensued between the accused and the husband of his sister. The former told the latter to go and die. The latter committed suicide on the third day of quarrel. The Apex Court observed that “it cannot be held that the suicide was direct result of quarrel. The charge of abetment against the accused was quahsed In re: Bhagwan Dass (supra), the wife could not give birth to a child for seven years. When she gave birth to a female child, she was taunted for bringing bad luck. She committed suicide. The Apex Court ruled that the offence of abetment under Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC is not Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -6- made out. In re: Paramjeet Singh Chawala (supra), the person who had granted loan to the borrower had demanded the loan amount from the latter. The Supreme Court laid down that the demand of loan amount does not itself prove the fact of instigation to deceased borrower for commission of suicide. The order framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the accused (loaner) was set aside. In re: Ram Naresh and another (supra), the deceased was unable to repay the loan amount. The accused degraded the deceased by making persistent demands and threatened him to vacate the house. The deceased committed suicide. It was held that the offence of abetment was not made out. In re: Kartar Singh and others (supra), the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home. There were allegations of cruelty and harassment against the petitioners – inlaws. It was held that there was no material showing that the petitioners had mens-rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Reverting back to the facts of the current case, the record is quite barren to show mens-rea on the petitioner's part to drive the deceased to commit suicide. They were to gain nothing by his death. It is a common place experience that the utterances attributed to the petitioners too often are made by the borrower to the loaner on vice-versa. The brother of the deceased was too with him. But he did not take the same words to his heart. There is nothing to reveal that the petitioners instigated, goaded or incited the deceased to commit suicide. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Here in this case as alleged, the petitioners- accused turned out the deceased as well as his brother from the sheller forcibly and insulted Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -7- them by saying that they did not owe anything to them and that they can do whatever they can do by approaching anybody of their choice. Ordinarily, a normal man in such a situation would not resort to take his own life. If the petitioners had offered insult or refused to pay money and had expelled the deceased as well as his brother forcibly from their sheller, the latters could have taken recourse to law. The commission of suicide was unwarranted in such a situation. The stated words would have been uttered in a fit of anger or omission, but without intending the consequences to actually follow. Consequently, the same do not constitute instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot be treated as constituting mens-rea. The Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. (See State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 186.) The deceased appeared to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in ordinary life. In the ultimate analysis, it boils down that the FIR does not reveal commission of the offence. In re: Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 101, it has been ruled that the FIR can be quashed, if the same does not disclose commission of Criminal Misc. No. M-31173 of 2008 (O&M) -8- any offence or that the allegations contained therein do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Coming to the present one, if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it will amount to abuse of the process of the Court as the FIR does not constitute any cognizable offence. As a sequel of the above discussion, this petition is accepted and the FIR No.246 dated 8.11.2008 registered at Police Station Bhulath District Kapurthala under Section 306 of IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed. February 06, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes