IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 Of 2009 Jagmohan Singh ………….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ………….Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Dated: November 18, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Present application is filed challenging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in case Crime No. 97 of 2009 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station: Basant Vihar, District: Dehradun. In the F.I.R. it has been contended that marriage of Kr. Sweta was to be held on 20.08.2009 with the applicant/accused. However, accused started demanding Apache motor cycle. It is further contended in the F.I.R. that on 13.09.2009 applicant/accused sent SMS on the phone of the deceased Kr. Sweta saying “I do not want your company. You may decide to go away from me right now or after marriage”. SMS further contended “You are blessed with boyfriends. Please, spare my life”. It is further contended in the FIR that Kr. Sweta received this SMS on 13.09.2009. Kr. Sweta, who was very sensitive, consumed the poison after reading the S.M.S. Thereafter she was referred to CMI Hospital, Dehradun and where she died on 14.09.2009. It is contended by Mr. Thapliyal that present case does not attract Section 306 IPC. Mr. Kothari, appearing for the complainant and Mr. Adhikari, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, argued that it was the SMS which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence this case falls under Section 306 IPC. To constitute an offence under Section 306, definition of abetment has to be seen. Section 107 IPC reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”. From the perusal of Section 107 IPC it can be held that a person, abets the doing of a thing when; (i) He instigates any person to do that thing or, (ii) Engages with one or more other person or, persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or (iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. In the present matter, contents of the F.I.R. do not fall in either of the above ingredients of Section 107 IPC. Moreover, the word “instigate” literary means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about person to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. Language of SMS nowhere suggests that applicant/accused ever wanted Kr. Sweta to commit suicide. He only asked Kr. Sweta to separate herself from the accused. It is admitted in the FIR that Kr. Sweta was over-sensitive. If an over-sensitive person commits suicide, offence of abetment can not be constituted. I find support from the Judgment of the apex court in the matters 2002 (5 SCC, page 371) Sanju Vs. State of M.P. and 2008 AIR SCW 3202 Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana. In both the cases, Hon’ble apex Court, while interpreting Section 107 IPC has held that even cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken to be an act of abetting suicide. In the present case even if SMS of applicant/ accused is taken as cruel and shocking, this will not constitute abetment. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm view that from the contents of the FIR no offence under Section 306 IPC can be said to have been made out. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR alive. Hence, present writ petition is allowed. Impugned FIR, Case Crime No. 97 of 2009, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station: Basant Vihar, District: Dehradun is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (Alok Singh, J.) 18.11.2009 Amit