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

4. The facts narrated in the petition divulge that the petitioner is working as Airport Service Manager and he is in¬charge of the affairs of one SITA Information Networking Computing based at Abudhabi. In the said capacity, he is responsible for managing SITA services at the Airports located at Abudhabi, Al Ain and Sharjah International Airports. The work entrusted to the petitioner involves providing of services at the Airports to keep all the computers and printers in working condition around the clock. For the said purpose, SITA Company has recruited its own staff and it has also appointed employees on contractual basis, who are recruited through one Prime Technology System.The deceased Sachin Saware was one of the contractual employees engaged through Prime Tech System. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the deceased had no privity of contract with SITA Company or with the petitioner as his principal employer ¬ Prime Tech System was responsible for his service conditions, medical insurance, salary, leave, etc.The petition discloses that on 15/09/2017, deceased Sachin Saware called upon the petitioner and informed his inability to resume his duty on account of sickness. On the same day, he resigned from the job and accordingly he was relieved by his principal employer. The petitioner has placed reliance on an email addressed to him by the Manager of Prime Tech Services dated 17/09/2017 by which he was officially informed that Sachin Saware had resigned from services on account of his health problem and his resignation was accepted and the petitioners company would be provided with a replacement candidate at the earliest.Perusal of facts disclose that an FIR came to be lodged on 15/05/2018 in Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambernath (E), Thane by one Mr. Madhukar Saware, thereby informing that his son Sachin Saware had committed suicide on 03/05/2018. The complainant in the said FIR had alleged and made a reference to marital discord of deceased Sachin Saware with his wife Swati. He also made a reference to the suicide note which was pasted on the wall of the room where he committed suicide. The said suicide note makes a reference to the petitioner and it is alleged that the Airport Manager of SITA Company at Abudhabi is responsible for his death as he was the person who had tortured him while he was not keeping well and compelled him to submit his resignation. Apart from this, he also held his wife and mother-in¬law responsible for his act of commission of suicide. Based on this allegation, offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC came to be registered against the petitioner and, by the present petition, he prays for quashing and setting aside of the said FIR registered against him.

Court's reasoning:
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