Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, considered a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.25/2019 registered at Police Station Hiwarkhed, District Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicants were two real sisters, their uncle, and the son of that uncle. The second respondent was the complainant, whose son Abhijeet committed suicide on 02.01.2019 by consuming insecticide in an agricultural field. The FIR was lodged on 01.02.2019, after a delay of about one month. The complaint alleged that the deceased had a love affair with applicant no.2 Rutika and that after his death, his father found WhatsApp chat and audio conversation between them. It was further alleged that a cousin of the complainant, Prashant Khottey, had met the deceased on 31.12.2018 and learned that the deceased was under mental stress because Rutika was pressurising him to marry her, which he could not do due to unemployment. The FIR also alleged that applicant nos.3 and 4 threatened consequences if the deceased did not marry Rutika. The High Court had earlier issued notice on 22.03.2019, permitting investigation but restraining filing of charge sheet without leave. During pendency, the State placed on record a statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 04.02.2019, in which the complainant changed his stand and said the deceased had a love affair with applicant no.1 Priyanka, not Rutika. Statements of three witnesses Amol Katkar, Prashant Khotte and Manikrao Wankhede were also recorded on the same day. These statements referred to love affair with Priyanka and mental tension due to her insistence on marriage. The Court examined the law of abetment under Section 107 IPC and referred to Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301. It observed that abetment involves mental process of instigating a person; instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage. The Court held that delay in filing FIR could be explained during trial and was not a ground to quash prosecution. On merits, however, it found that the complainant had changed his version about which sister was involved, and that allegations against applicant nos.3 and 4 were most general and vague. The Court held that a girl who is in love with a person and insists that he should culminate their love relation into marriage cannot be said to have abetted suicide. The existence of WhatsApp chat and audio conversation did not help the prosecution. Therefore, no case of abetment of suicide was made out against the applicants. Consequently, the criminal application was allowed, and the FIR dated 01.02.2019 vide Crime No.25/2019 registered with Police Station Hiwarkhed, District Akola, for offences under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, was quashed and set aside against all four applicants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Delay in Filing FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - The applicants challenged FIR on ground of one month delay in lodging report. The Court held that delay in lodging FIR is not a ground to quash prosecution at threshold because prosecution may explain delay during trial if explanation is plausible. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Definition and Meaning of Abetment - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 107, 306 - The Court examined Section 107 IPC and relied on Ude Singh v. State of Haryana to explain that abetment involves instigation, goading, urging forward, provoking, inciting or encouraging. Mens rea on part of accused must be examined with reference to actual acts and deeds. (Paras 13-14) C) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Love Affair and Insistence on Marriage - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 306, 107 - The Court held that a girl in love affair with a person insisting that the person should convert love relation into marriage cannot be said to have abetted suicide. Even existence of WhatsApp chat and audio conversation did not establish abetment. (Paras 15) D) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Vague Allegations and Shifting Complainant Version - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 306, 506, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - The first informant initially stated deceased had love affair with one sister and later changed version to another sister. Allegations against uncle and cousin were general and vague. Therefore no prima facie case of abetment was made out and FIR was quashed. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and investigation material made out a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants; whether the FIR was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The criminal application was allowed. First Information Report dated 01.02.2019 vide Crime No.25/2019, registered with Police Station Hiwarkhed, District Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against applicant nos.1 to 4 was quashed and set aside. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- Abetment requires instigation
- goading
- urging
- provoking
- inciting or encouraging
- delay in lodging FIR may be explained during trial
- mere love affair and insistence on marriage by a woman cannot amount to abetment of suicide
- vague and general allegations do not make out offence under Section 306 IPC
- mens rea must be examined with reference to actual acts and deeds
