Mere disapproval of a relationship does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; there must be direct or indirect instigation with a proximate link to the act.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Smt. Laxmi Das challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revisional Application, being CRR No. 1560 of 2012, along with an application for quashing, being CRAN No. 1946 of 2013. By this order, the High Court has quashed the chargesheet as only against Dilip Das/Accused No. 3 and Subrata Das/Accused No. 2, while rejecting the application preferred by the Appellant/Accused No. 4.

2. The facts germane to the present dispute are summarised as below:

2.1 Appellant is the mother of Babu Das/Accused No. 1, who was allegedly in a love affair with the deceased, Souma Pal. Dilip Das and Subrata Das are the father and elder brother of Babu Das respectively (hereinafter collectively “the accused”). All four were initially accused of abetment of suicide and charged under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”)

2.2 On 03.07.2008 an unnatural death came to be registered as the deceased was found dead in the place between the Garia Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station. Consequently on 06.07.2008, an FIR came to be filed by the deceased’s uncle/Complainant alleging abetment of suicide against the accused. The Complainant alleged that the deceased’s family was unhappy with the love affair between Babu Das and the deceased, and wanted her to focus on her studies. On account of this, they requested Babu Das and the other accused persons to help them put an end to the same, which they refused to do. It is further alleged that the accused persons refused to cooperate in finding the deceased when she went missing.

2.3 Accordingly, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused under Sections 306 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC. The investigation revealed that about three to four years before the incident, the love affair between the deceased and Babu Das began. The deceased’s parents were against the relationship and tried several times to break it off, while the accused persons encouraged the same. The post mortem report disclosed that the death was caused by the effect of injuries on impact due to jumping in front of a train.

2.4 Several neighbours were examined, and accordingly their statements have come on record. The witnesses allege that a few days prior to the incident there were altercations between the deceased and Babu Das, who refused to marry her. The allegation against the Appellant herein is that she disapproved of her son/Babu Das marrying the deceased and insulted the deceased on account of the same.

3. After filing of the chargesheet, the accused persons preferred an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) before the Trial Court. On 22.03.2012, the Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the Appellant along with Dilip Das and Subrata Das preferred a revisional and a quashing application before the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application preferred by the Appellant and refused to entertain the revision petition and the quashing application qua her. However, the High Court allowed the quashing application preferred by Dilip Das and Subrata Das on the ground that there are no specific allegations against them in the evidence on record. The operative part of the impugned order is as follows:

“So far as the petitioner no. 3 (the Appellant) is concerned I find there are prima facie materials against her. According to the witness Rejina Khatoon she was told by the deceased Souma that when Souma told Babu and his mother, the petitioner no. 3 herein that she could not survive without Babu they told her that she need not be alive and might die. Having regard to such statement there is nothing wrong in framing charge against her for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”

4. The primary ground taken by the Appellant is that the Appellant has committed no act against t