Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Anusaya Wasudeo Mate, Wasudeo Sitaram Mate and Baliram Wasudeo Mate, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 06 of 2017 registered by Shegaon Police Station, District Buldana, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2, Sunita Katkar, wife of the deceased. The deceased was her second husband; his first wife had died. The deceased owned about four acres of agricultural land. His sisters, Anusaya and another, demanded their share in the ancestral land. On the day of the incident, the deceased committed suicide in his field and left a chit stating that due to harassment by the applicants over the partition demand, he was taking his life. The applicants contended that they resided in different villages, had no role in instigating the suicide, and that the demand for partition is a legal right and does not amount to abetment. They relied on the decision in Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328) to argue that without a positive act of instigation with mens rea, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. The respondent State opposed the application, while respondent no. 2 did not appear. The Court, after perusing the FIR and hearing arguments, held that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not constitute abetment to suicide. Citing the ratio in Dilip Shirasao, the Court observed that abetment requires a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding, and without an active or direct act that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The sisters’ demand for partition is a legal right and cannot be characterised as instigation. The Court also noted that there was no allegation that on the day of the incident or prior to it, the applicants quarrelled with or threatened the deceased. Thus, continuation of the investigation and trial would be an abuse of process. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 06/2017 in its entirety.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306, 34 – The applicants, being sisters of the deceased, demanded partition of ancestral land; the deceased committed suicide leaving a chit blaming them for harassment – Even taking the FIR allegations as true, the court held that demand for partition, being a legal right, does not constitute instigation or abetment under Section 306 IPC as there was no positive act or direct instigation that led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option – No allegation of quarrel or threat on the day of incident – Held, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process; FIR quashed and set aside (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Information Report alleging demand for partition of ancestral property and consequent harassment leading to suicide makes out the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the FIR should be quashed to prevent abuse of process of court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed and set aside FIR No. 06/2017 registered by Shegaon Police Station against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the allegations did not constitute abetment to suicide and that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court.
Law Points
- For abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC there must be clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding
- conviction cannot be sustained without an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
- mere demand for partition of ancestral property is a legal right and does not amount to instigation or abetment
- continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court
- FIR liable to be quashed under Bhajan Lal guidelines
