Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1196/2018).
Date: February 22, 2024.
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Quorum: Hon’ble J. C.T. Ravikumar, J. Rajesh Bindal.
Facts of the Case:
The case concerns the death by suicide of Brijesh Chandra, father of the appellant Vikas Chandra. Brijesh Chandra was a retired military man working as a security guard at Mandi Samiti, Puwaya. The respondent Ram Babu Sharma was the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti at the time.
According to the complaint filed by Vikas Chandra, his father’s salary from March 2004 to August 2004 and September 2004 onwards was not paid. On October 12, 2004, when Brijesh Chandra requested the release of his salary, Ram Babu Sharma allegedly told him: “I will see that how will you get your salary and who will help you in getting your salary, I will bring out your military-man-ship and either you die or your children, but I do not care, get out of here, why you do not take poison”.
On October 23, 2004, Brijesh Chandra committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working at the time. He left a suicide note allegedly attributing responsibility for his suicide to Ram Babu Sharma.
Initially, the complainant approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate, but the complaint was not forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The matter was taken up in revision and eventually to the High Court. Based on the High Court’s orders, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide.
After investigation, the police filed a closure report. The Magistrate did not accept this report and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC based on a protest petition filed by the complainant. Subsequently, the Magistrate issued summons to Ram Babu Sharma to face trial for the offense under Section 306 IPC.
Ram Babu Sharma challenged this summons order in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the summons order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues:
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the summons issued against the respondent?
Whether the High Court exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC?
Whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to issue summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
Legal Provisions:
- Indian Penal Code:
- Section 306 IPC – Abetment of suicide.
- Section 107 IPC – Abetment.
- Code of Criminal Procedure:
- Section 156(3) CrPC – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
- Section 173(2) CrPC – Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
- Section 190 CrPC – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
- Section 202 CrPC – Postponement of issue of process.
- Section 204 CrPC – Issue of process.
- Section 482 CrPC – Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
Contentions of petitioners:
The appellant strongly argued that the High Court had committed a grave error in law by quashing the summons issued against the respondent. They contended that the Magistrate’s decision to issue summons was based on sufficient prima facie evidence and should not have been interfered with by the High Court. The appellant asserted that the High Court had exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC. They argued that the High Court’s power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of the process of law.
The appellant maintained that there was ample prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
They pointed to the following elements:
- The alleged threatening and instigative remarks made by the respondent on October 12, 2004.
- The non-payment of salary, which they argued created circumstances that led to the suicide.
- The suicide notes mentioning the respondent’s name and attributing responsibility to him.
The appellant argued that given the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of prima facie evidence, the matter deserved a full trial. They contended that quashing the summons at this stage would prevent a proper investigation into the circumstances of Brijesh Chandra’s death.
The appellant argued for a broader interpretation of the suicide note, suggesting that even if it didn’t explicitly mention the October 12 incident, the overall content implied abetment by the respondent.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that the summoning order was issued without satisfying the grounds required under law. They contended that mere mention of a name in a suicide note does not automatically amount to abetment of suicide. They argued that the Magistrate’s order did not reflect proper application of mind to form an opinion regarding sufficient basis for proceeding against the respondent. They pointed out that the order lacked detailed reasoning for issuing the summons. The respondents emphasized that there was no material suggesting instigation by the respondent in the suicide note. They argued that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or creation of circumstances that left no option but suicide. They pointed out the significant time gap (11 days) between the alleged instigation and the suicide, arguing that this weakened any case for abetment. They also contended that there was no evidence of a continued course of conduct that could be seen as abetment.
The respondents highlighted that the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, which formed the basis of the complaint, was not mentioned in the suicide note. They argued that if this incident was indeed the trigger for the suicide, it would have been mentioned. They further argued that allowing the case to proceed based on such flimsy evidence would amount to misuse of the criminal process and cause undue harassment to the respondent. They contended that the High Court’s use of power under Section 482 CrPC was justified to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Analysis of the judgement:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the summons order. The Court reaffirmed that while a Magistrate has the power to issue summons even after a closure report is filed by the police, this power must be exercised judiciously. It emphasized that issuing summons is a serious matter that affects an individual’s dignity and reputation, and therefore should not be done mechanically but only upon satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding.
The Court clarified that for an offense under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC, with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned. In this case, the Court found no explicit or implicit reference in the suicide note to the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, or any instigation by the respondent. The significant time gap of 11 days between the alleged instigation and the suicide further weakened the case for abetment. The Court held that the mere statement in the suicide note that the respondent would be responsible for the suicide was not sufficient ground to issue summons for an offense under Section 306 IPC.
The judgement emphasized the need for careful judicial scrutiny before issuing summons in criminal cases, serving as a safeguard against arbitrary or mechanical issuance of summons. The Court’s clarification on the ingredients of abetment of suicide is vital, stressing that specific abetment with the intention to bring about the suicide is necessary, and mere attribution of responsibility in a suicide note is not sufficient.
The Court’s consideration of the lack of proximity between the alleged instigation and the suicide, as well as the absence of a continued course of conduct, as factors weakening the case for abetment, provides valuable guidance for similar cases. The judgment also offers insights into how suicide notes should be appreciated in the context of abetment charges, suggesting that courts should look for specific allegations and material of a definite nature, not merely inferences.
Conclusion
The decision serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their powers judiciously, especially in cases involving serious charges like abetment of suicide. It also provides guidance on how to appreciate evidence, particularly suicide notes, in such cases.
Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.
Click here to read the Judgement.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
