JUDGMENT :

(Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) :

1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Applicants have sought to quash the FIR No.238 of 2017 registered with M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.

3. Ms Aruna Pai, learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the deceased was working as a cashier in the shop of the Applicants. CCTV footage showed that he had committed theft of cash as well as goods from the shop. The deceased had admitted having committed theft and had agreed to return the money or continue to work in the shop till payment of money. She submits that the suicide note as well as the other material on record does not indicate that the Applicants had in any manner instigated the deceased-Raghuvir Acharya to commit suicide. She therefore contends that the allegations in the FIR and the other material on record do not disclose offence under Section 306 of the IPC. She has relied upon the decision of Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2024 (1) SCC 417.

4. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP and Mr. Samkit Shah, learned learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that allegations in the suicide note prima facie prove that the Applicants had levelled allegations of theft, due to which the deceased was in a disturbed state of mind. It is submitted that the material on record prima facie shows the involvement of the Applicants in the said crime. Even otherwise the issue whether the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out or not can be decided only in the course of the trial.

5. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. The only question for our consideration is whether the FIR as well as other material on record discloses that the Applicants have abetted suicide of Raghuvir Acharya.

7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a cashier in the shop of the Applicants. He committed suicide during the intervening night of 08/07/2017 and 09/07/2017. Respondent No.2, son of the deceased lodged the FIR alleging that he had come across suicide notes dated 07/06/2016, 12/06/2017, 18/06/2017, 02/07/2017, 07/06/2017 and 08/07/2017 in the handwriting of his father. The said notes indicated that (i) Applicants used to abuse, insult and assault the deceased; (ii) They had levelled false charges of theft against him; (iii) They had taken forcible writing from him that he would not leave the job and threatened to send him to jail; (iv) They had taken the laptop, calculator and handbag of the deceased and the deceased was put under constant mental pressure; and (v) That the deceased was not paid the salary in time. It is contended that said Raghuvir Acharya committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the Applicants. Hence, the allegation of abetment.

8. It may be mentioned that, the term ‘abetment’ as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, reads thus :-

107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

First :- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly :- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly :- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 : A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 : Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is sa