In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without a positive act proximate to the time of occurrence may not sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.37/2023 of Sindagi police station, Vijayapur district, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of learned Senior Civil and JMFC, Sindagi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Petitioner is accused No.3, respondent No.1 is the complainant -State and respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 13.02.2023, the complainant Smt.Mahadevi lodged a complaint to the respondent -police, alleging that, she has been residing at Korwar, Devar Hipparagi taluka, along with her family and since 14 years, her husband Basavaraj (deceased) was serving as a teacher at Sasbal Government H.P.S. School and since May, 2022, he was appointed as Principal, as the Headmaster Sri G.N.Patil (accused No.1) was elevated as Cluster Resource Center Coordinator (C.R.C.). She contended that, since her husband took over the charge as Principal, he was under tremendous pressure, as accused No.1 during his tenure as a Principal, not maintained proper documents, however, he had handed over charge to deceased Basavaraj, hence, the BEO/petitioner has been issuing notice to him, to rectify the documents or to maintain documents properly and other accused were harassing deceased Basavaraj, thus, he became fed up and depression. It is contended that, on 12.02.2023 at 7.30 p.m., Basavaraj left his house on his motorcycle and on the same night, at 10.00 pm, the brother of complainant Mallangouda informed her that, Basavaraj hanged himself to a Neem tree in the Tahsildar Office premises by leaving death note in his pocket, noting that all accused persons are responsible for his death. Hence, she lodged a complaint, thus, police registered a case in Crime No.37/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 149 of IPC.

4. Taking exception of the same, the petitioner/accused No.3 has field this petition to quash the FIR and complaint filed against him.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 -de-facto complainant.

6. Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case; the petitioner is a BEO of Sindagi taluka, during his inspection to the school of deceased Basavaraj i.e., on 09.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, the petitioner issued show cause notices to discharge his official duties and to rectify the documents properly, therefore, mere issue of show cause notice cannot be construed as harassment to a staff to abet him in order to commit suicide, soon before death to attract Section 306 of IPC. Further, there is no mens rea or an abetment on the part of the petitioner to attract Sections 107 and 109 of IPC and there is no nexus between suicide committed by deceased Basavaraj and the issuance of show cause notices by the petitioner herein. It is contended that, the allegation neither discloses any offence nor it link the petitioner to the allegation of abetment of suicide, hence, prima facie, there is no material against petitioner and continuation of criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. Thus, the counsel prayed to quash the FIR. The counsel relied upon following decisions:

i. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Appeal No.765/2018 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2600/2018.

ii. Criminal Petition No.3502/20222 disposed off on 10.05.2022 in the case of Sri B.S.Manju vs. .

iii. Criminal Appeal No.2086/2014 in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair and Others.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that, t