Case Note & Summary
The matter involved a criminal application before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered against six assistant teachers of a Zilla Parishad primary school for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased, Eknath Ramchandra Ghurde, who was working as Head Master at the same school. She alleged that on 15 July 2017, her husband returned from school, had lunch, and was sleeping. In the evening, her son informed her that the assistant teachers—Prakash Dhomne, Subhash Dhokne, Sanjay Gase, Gajanan Kalbande, Amol Rakhonde, and Ravi Solanke—had taken some withdrawals and cash from her husband but had not submitted bills of expenditure, and were not cooperating with him. She further stated that due to their behaviour, her husband committed suicide in the night of 16 July 2017 by hanging himself. A chit was found in his pocket in which he had stated that due to harassment by the applicants, he was committing suicide. The applicants contended that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, no offence of abetment to suicide was made out. The Court examined the factual background and found that the deceased himself was involved in misappropriation of Rs. 70,000/- of government money, as evidenced by correspondence from the Block Education Officer. He had been asked to produce receipts and vouchers, and the possibility of suicide due to the constant pressure of those enquiries could not be ruled out. The alleged suicide note was not produced, and there was no material to indicate that any of the applicants had instigated, aided, or conspired to bring about the suicide. Relying on its earlier decision in Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao & ors. v. State of Maharashtra and anr., where it was held that for attracting Section 306 IPC, there must be specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC with the intention to cause suicide, the court concluded that no such element was present. The court also cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to hold that the FIR was liable to be quashed as it did not disclose commission of any offence. Consequently, the criminal application was allowed, the rule was made absolute, and the FIR was quashed. The final order was passed on 4 April 2018.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC - Indian Penal Code, Sections 306, 34, 107 - The FIR alleged that assistant teachers took withdrawals and cash from the deceased head master and did not cooperate, causing him to commit suicide; a chit alleged harassment. The court found no material to show instigation or abetment. Held that to constitute abetment, there must be intentional aid or instigation to bring about suicide, which was absent. The possibility of suicide due to pressure of misappropriation charges against the deceased himself could not be ruled out. (Paras 7-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Power under Section 482 CrPC and guidelines in Bhajan Lal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Considering the dictum in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence, it is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. The FIR was quashed as it did not make out an offence of abetment to suicide. Held that criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations in the FIR make out an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
Criminal application allowed; FIR registered against the applicants for offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause.
Law Points
- For offence under Section 306 IPC
- specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC with intention to bring about suicide is required
- mere harassment or non-cooperation without direct instigation does not constitute abetment
- FIR not disclosing offence is liable to be quashed under principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
