Case: Suresh Hindurao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another

acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. [2005 (2) SCC 659 ], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work.12. The position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court has subsequently followed by a series of judgments delivered by this Court and counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Kishor Dattatraya Shinde (supra). Abetment involves a mental process – a mens rea – without a positive act on part of the accused to aid or instigate suicide, a charge under Section 306 cannot be sustained. In the case of State of Kerala & Ors. v. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 3351 , the Honble Apex Court dealt with the case of a Chief Investigating Officer who had committed suicide pending investigation in a murder case. In the suicide note, he alleged that two of his subordinates were responsible for the situation which had prompted him to commit suicide. Some allegations were also levelled against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and one advocate. The Kerala High Court quashed the FIR and, being aggrieved, the State had approached the Apex Court. While dismissing the appeal, the following observations came to be made by Their Lordships and we reproduce the same:13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate. 13. The present case is one such cases, which was decided by the Apex Court, and we find that except a bald statement that the petitioner was harassing the deceased and meted out ill¬treatment to him, there is no other allegation. We have already observed that the petitioner had no role to play in the governing service conditions of the deceased and, therefore, whatever unpleasent situation which had occasioned out of the employment, the petitioner in, no way, was responsible for the same.14. The ingredients to prove an offence of suicide is conspicuously absent in the present case as the intention to bring about the suicide of the deceased is not made out in the FIR nor can it be said to be made out from the suicide note. Perusal of the FIR filed by the father of the deceased makes a reference to the proximate discord of the deceased with his wife and the deceased had committed suicide in the month of May, 2018, approximately after 7 months of his return to India from Abudhabi. The complainant did not make any reference in the FIR except that he was resigned from service and for seven months he was staying at the given address. There appears to be some discord between the deceased and his wife and it appears from the complaint that it had aggravated since he left his job at Abudhabi. In any contingency, the FIR does not allege anything against the petitioner except the contention in the suicide note. Since we fail to note any allegations in the FIR attributing a specific role of the petitioner in abetting the suicide of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would suffer a serious and great prejudice if he is made to face the prosecution on absurd, vague and irrelevant allegations. We do not expect the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of the trial.We are prima facie satisfied that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and to secure justice, we are inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash and set aside the subject FIR dated 15th May 2018 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath (E), Thane

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. We have perused the petition along with its annexures and have also carefully considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.It is to be noted that by Order dated 21/01/2019, this Court, while issuing notice, had directed continuation of investigation, but had restrained the police from filing charge¬sheet. On perusal of the facts, it is clear that the petitioner was working in SITA Company, which was responsible for maintaining the Information Network Computing System at various Airports and in discharge of its functions, the Company had recruited its own staff or was taking the assistance of the contractual employees recruited by Prime Tech Systems. The deceased was recruited by Prime Tech Systems and he was attached to the petitioners Company as a contractual employee. The petitioner in his capacity as Airport Service Manager of SITA Company was not in a supervisory capacity, competent to take any decision qua the employees of the principal employer though it may be true that there was some issues between the deceased and the Prime Tech System as is apparent from the emails placed on record. However, in any case, the petitioner or his company cannot be said to be responsible for the death of the deceased as the correspondence exchanged were in regard to the service stipulations sought to be enforced by Prime Tech System. The principal employer intimated the petitioner about the resignation of the deceased and acceptance of his resignation and intimated that he would be replaced by a suitable employee. There is no existence of any contractual relationship between the petitioner and the deceased and it is absurd to think that the act of suicide of the deceased can, in any way, attributed to the ill¬treatment meted out to him by the petitioner.By now it is settled position of law that for establishing an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be proof of specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 of the IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned and what is the focal point is the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.The position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court has subsequently followed by a series of judgments delivered by this Court and counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Kishor Dattatraya Shinde (supra). Abetment involves a mental process – a mens rea – without a positive act on part of the accused to aid or instigate suicide, a charge under Section 306 cannot be sustained.The present case is one such cases, which was decided by the Apex Court, and we find that except a bald statement that the petitioner was harassing the deceased and meted out ill¬treatment to him, there is no other allegation. We have already observed that the petitioner had no role to play in the governing service conditions of the deceased and, therefore, whatever unpleasent situation which had occasioned out of the employment, the petitioner in, no way, was responsible for the same.The ingredients to prove an offence of suicide is conspicuously absent in the present case as the intention to bring about the suicide of the deceased is not made out in the FIR nor can it be said to be made out from the suicide note. Perusal of the FIR filed by the father of the deceased makes a reference to the proximate discord of the deceased with his wife and the deceased had committed suicide in the month of May, 2018, approximately after 7 months of his return to India from Abudhabi. The complainant did not make any reference in the FIR except that he was resigned from service and for seven months he was staying at the given address. There appears to be some discord between the deceased and his wife and it appears from the complaint that it had aggravated since he left his job at Abudhabi. In any contingency, the FIR does not allege anything against the petitioner except the contention in the suicide note. Since we fail to note any allegations in the FIR attributing a specific role of the petitioner in abetting the suicide of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would suffer a serious and great prejudice if he is made to face the prosecution on absurd, vague and irrelevant allegations. We do not expect the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of theare prima facie satisfied that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and to secure justice, we are inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash and set aside the subject FIR dated 15th May 2018 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath (E), Thane