Gulshan Kumar v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1], the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 11.09.2024[2] passed by the learned ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi[3] framing charges against him under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 in proceedings arising out of FIR No.463/2011 dated 15.11.2011 registered at PS: K.N. Katju Marg. Hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’ Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’

2. Succinctly put, an FIR was registered pursuant to application dated 01.09.2011 under Section 156(3) CrPC made by the complainant to the effect that his deceased father[5], whose dead body was discovered floating inside Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant on 12.07.2011 at about 01:55 PM, had committed suicide due to harassment at the hands of various known and unknown persons for recovery of certain monies they had lent to the deceased, albeit the petitioner was not named therein.

3. During the course of investigation, one Suicide Note[6] was also received by the reader at PS: K.N. Katju Marg, as per which, the petitioner and one Kashmiri Lal (since deceased) financed vehicle bearing No.DL1M0175 for the deceased, and in the process of demanding back the said amount, took possession of the said vehicle and returned the same only after forcing him to transfer a certain portion of land in favour of one Acche Lal for Rs.[5] lacs. Further, when the deceased demanded the said amount from them after a lapse of two months, they did not give him any money and rather demanded repayment of the initial loan as also threatened to sell his vehicle to recover their money. There were further certain allegations therein against one Arun Kumar who had also allegedly lent money to the deceased and was demanding back the same.

4. After filing of the Chargesheet on 26.04.2016, Supplementary Chargesheet was filed two years later on 02.12.2018, and upon issuance of summons, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner and Kashmiri Lal since there were allegations against them of having threatened the deceased in the Suicide Note, Hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ Hereinafter referred to as ‘Suicide Note’ whereon the signatures of the deceased had been verified as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 04.05.2016[7]. However, by the very same impugned order, the other accused were discharged as well.

5. In these facts, challenging the impugned order before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner primarily submitted that the impugned order has been passed erroneously as there is nothing on record to implicate the petitioner, moreover, since he was neither named in the initial complaint filed by the complainant and the resultant FIR nor in the original Chargesheet but was mentioned for the very first time in the Supplementary Chargesheet, that too in Column 12 only as a ‘suspect’. In fact, Arun Kumar, who was arrayed as the only ‘accused’ in the Supplementary Chargesheet and against whom the wife of the deceased had allegedly filed a complaint about one week prior to the incident for molestation and harassment, has been discharged along with his employees by the learned Trial Court.

6. Qua the materials on record, learned counsel submitted that the same are wholly unreliable since the Post-Mortem Report dated 13.07.2011[8] is inconclusive as to the cause of death and records other injuries on the body of the deceased, as well as the Suicide Note was recovered under mysterious circumstances much later than the discovery of the dead body of the deceased, and though the signatures thereon were verified, as per the FSL Report, the contents thereof could not be verified.

7. Even otherwise, learned counsel submitted that the contents of the Suicide Note do not disclose any element of offences under Sections Hereinafter referred to as ‘FSL Report’ Hereinafter referred to as ‘PM Report’ 306/34 IPC qua the petitioner since there is nothing barring vague allegations therein. Qua the allegedly forced transfer of land in which the petitioner is said to be involved, the complainant himself was also a witness, as also no complaint, FIR or any other steps were taken by the deceased or the complainant therefor. As such, relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh[9], Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh10, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.11 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh12 as also of this Court in Ajit Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)13 and Prashant Manchanda vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi14, the learned counsel submitted that there was nothing attributable to the petitioner which could show any act or intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide in terms of Section 306/34 IPC.

8. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, both learned APP and learned counsel for complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not suffer from any errors. They submitted that the signatures on the Suicide Note are matching with those of the deceased as per the FSL Report and it is too early for the petitioner to contest the authenticity of the contents. They further submitted that since there are allegations against the petitioner and Kashmiri Lal of threatening the deceased and using force to get him

I (2010) DLT (Crl.) 237 2007 (95) DRJ 449 transferred his land, prima facie, offences under Section 306/34 IPC are made out against them, for which trial is required.

10. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and the learned APP, as also carefully perused the pleadings and documents on record as well as the judgements cited at Bar.

11. At the outset this Court notes that under the existing circumstances, it is imperative to give due weightage to the provisions of Section 10715 IPC while dealing with an offence of abetment of suicide under Section IPC. While dealing with the same, it is now settled by a long line of judicial precedents that an accused is required to have played an active role in commission of suicide of the deceased, either by instigation compelling the said deceased to end the life or by conspiring with others to ensure that the deceased commits suicide or by acting in a way which directly results in the suicide17. For this, mere allegations without any specific, direct or indirect, act(s) coupled with clear mens rea may itself not be enough18. Further, instigation should be such which involves a positive mental process involving intentional provoking, inciting, goading, urging, forwarding or encouraging commission of suicide19 or committing acts or ‘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. (xxx xxx xxx)’ ‘306. Abetment of suicide-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine’ Prabhu vs. State: Order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.39981/2022 Mahendra Awase (supra) Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) omissions proximal to the time of occurrence which would have left the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to life20.

12. Therefore, while framing of charges it is necessary for a Court to take into consideration each of the above. Further, at the same time as per settled position of law a Court is not required to undertake a mini-trial by weighing and balancing the evidence. Also, framing of a charge is independent of the final outcome, which may lead to conviction of an accused. However, sifting of evidence, if required, may be adverted to by the Court21 ’22. It is also to be kept in mind that where the ingredients of an offence are not made out even from the case of the prosecution as reflected in the materials on record, the Court is not obligated to frame the charge23 ’24.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while specifically dealing with respect to charges under Section 306 IPC, repeatedly held that it is not just or fair to put any individual through the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of any credible material against him25. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently reiterated that a Court ought not to frame charges under Section 306 IPC casually or only to play safe without testing the same against the threshold as contemplated therein26.

14. Applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, this Court finds note that the petitioner was neither named by the complainant in his initial complaint nor were there any prior complaint(s) filed against him by Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B.:(2010) 1 SCC 707 State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap:(2021) 11 SCC 191