1. Suicide of an employee — Alleged abetment by superior due to non-payment of salary — Summoning order under Section 306, IPC — Quashing of summons under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 295
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Vikas Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1196 of 2018
Decided On : 22-02-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of a person to face trial – Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. – Existence of power and exercise of power are different and distinct – Taking cognizance empowered under Section 190, Cr.P.C. and issuing process empowered under Section 204, Cr.P.C. are different and distinct.
Summoning of a person to face trial – Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. – Existence of power and exercise of power are different and distinct – Taking cognizance empowered under Section 190, Cr.P.C. and issuing process empowered under Section 204, Cr.P.C. are different and distinct.
Subject
Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 190, 204 and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 – Summoning of a person to face trial – Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. – Existence of power and exercise of power are different and distinct – Taking cognizance empowered under Section 190, Cr.P.C. and issuing process empowered under Section 204, Cr.P.C. are different and distinct – There should be sufficiency of materials against accused concerned before proceeding under Section 204, Cr.P.C. – Court has to see prima facie evidence – In present case, there is no allegation of continued course of conduct against respondent No. 2 creating circumstances compelling victim to or leaving victim with no other option but to, commit suicide – So-called suicide note would not reveal and reflect that victim was disturbed on account of non-receipt of salary and for that reason, he was bent upon to commit suicide – Impugned judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Captioned appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 5961 of 2013. As per impugned order, in invocation of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 High Court quashed the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, summoning respondent No. 2 herein in the appeal to face trial for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment of High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity, illegality or perversity and conclusions are arrived at after a rightful appreciation of complaint and other materials on record, within permissible parameters.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR Mr. Maheen Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Aseem Atwal, Adv. Mr. Kartavya Batra, Adv. Mr. Anurag Chandra, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Sidana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. R Karthik, Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Shashidhar Tripathi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR Mr. Maheen Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Aseem Atwal, Adv. Mr. Kartavya Batra, Adv. Mr. Anurag Chandra, Adv. Ms. Nupur Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Muskan Sidana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. R Karthik, Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Shashidhar Tripathi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's quashing of summoning order — Dispute over whether Magistrate applied mind to sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 204, Cr.P.C. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Summoning requires subjective satisfaction of sufficient grounds — Section 306, IPC requires specific abetment and mens rea — Suicide note lacked evidence of instigation or proximity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Summoning under Section 306, IPC requires specific abetment under Section 107, IPC, demonstrating a clear intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (Para 19 , 22 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order quashing the summoning order upheld. (Para 29 , 30 )
6. Can a Magistrate issue summons if the police file a closure report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C.?
Yes, the Magistrate is not bound to accept a closure report and may accept it, order further investigation, investigate personally, or take cognizance as a private complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. (Para 8 )
7. What is the legal standard for a Magistrate to issue a summoning order under Section 204, Cr.P.C.?
Summoning is a serious matter requiring the Magistrate to apply their mind to facts and law, ensuring there is sufficient ground for proceeding and a prima facie case. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
8. Under what circumstances can a summoning order be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.?
A summoning order can be quashed if the complaint makes out no case, allegations are patently absurd, the Magistrate's discretion was arbitrary, or there are fundamental legal defects. (Para 14 , 17 )
9. What are the essential requirements to establish an offence under Section 306, IPC?
There must be specific abetment as defined under Section 107, IPC, including instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, with a clear intention to bring about the suicide. (Para 19 )
10. Does a mere mention of a person's name in a suicide note suffice for summoning under Section 306, IPC?
No, a suicide note must reveal specific acts of instigation or a continued course of conduct creating circumstances that leave the deceased with no other option but suicide. (Para 22 , 24 , 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 5961 of 2013. As per the impugned order, in invocation of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) the High Court quashed the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No. 1478 of 2012, summoning the respondent No. 2 herein in the appeal to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-State of Uttar Pradesh and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
3. It is a matter where, initially, the complainant approached the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint and on being refused to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. the matter was taken up in revision and upon its dismissal before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9134/2005. Consequently, based on the orders of the High Court thereon, F.I.R. No. 107/2005 was registered at Alhaganj Police Station under Section 306, IPC. The final report filed under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. would reveal that after the investigation, virtually, a closure report was filed by the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate did not accept the closure report. In the protest petition filed by the appellant herein the learned Magistrate made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and based on all the materials collected issued summons to respondent No. 2 herein as per order dated 05.04.2012 and it is the challenge against the same that culminated in the impugned order.
4. Compendiously stated, the case of the appellant is that respondent No. 2 committed abetment of suicide inasmuch as his father Shri Brijesh Chandra, committed suicide, by consuming poison, in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working, after leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent No. 2. The appellant’s father was earlier working in Mandi Samiti, Puwaya as Security Guard and the respondent No. 2 was the then Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. The complaint is to the effect that the salary of the deceased from March, 2004 to August, 2004 and September, 2004 onwards was not paid by Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad and on 12.10.2004, when he requested for its release, respondent No. 2 told:
“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.”
5. According to the appellant, the deceased was a retired military man and subsequent to the events on 12.10.2004 he returned home in moony mood and on 23.10.2004 at around 10.00 a.m. went to attend duty at Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj from Warikhas and committed suicide thereafter leaving a suicide note noting down such incident as well.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and also have gone through the detailed discussion made by the High Court to come to the conclusion to invoke the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 05.04.2012. The bifold contentions of the appellant raised, based on law, against the impugned judgment are as under:
(i) The High Court has committed grave error in law in quashing the summons issued against respondent No. 2.
(ii) The High Court has stepped beyond the settled guidelines and parameters ordained by this Court in catena of decisions with respect to exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and in view of such guidelines and parameters, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the summons issued by the Trial Court.
7. Per contra
