SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Anuja Prabhu Dessai, R.M. Joshi, JJ.
Jeevan Dodhu Baviskar - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 526 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate, S.D. Ghayal, Advocate, S.M. Ganachari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid leading to suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

Headnote:

ABETMENT - SUICIDE - IPC Sec. 306, IPC Sec. 34, Cr.P.C. Sec. 482 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, which criminalizes abetment of suicide, and Section 34, which pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306, there must be clear mens rea and a direct act that led the deceased to commit suicide. The court found that the allegations did not establish the necessary elements of abetment, leading to the decision to quash the FIR.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an FIR against bank officials for abetting the suicide of a borrower who defaulted on a loan. The deceased had taken a loan to purchase commercial vehicles and allegedly faced harassment from the bank officials for repayment, leading to his suicide.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR did not disclose an offence under Section 306 IPC as there was no evidence of instigation or direct acts by the bank officials that led to the suicide. The court concluded that compelling the applicants to face trial would be an abuse of process.

Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC and whether the applicants could be compelled to face a criminal trial based on those allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and direct acts of instigation or aid leading to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions do not suffice for abetment.

Final Decision: The application to quash the FIR was allowed, and the FIR registered against the bank officials was quashed.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Learned Counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 have stated that the matter has been amicably settled. The Respondent No. 2 has filed his affidavit giving no objection to quash the first information report. Since the offence is punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC, which is not of private nature, we are not inclined to quash the proceedings with consent.

2. With consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. This is an application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report bearing Crime No. 326/2022 dtd. 18/9/2022 registered at Police Station, Parola, Dist. Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2, son of the deceased Shobhilal Mahajan. The FIR reveals that the deceased had availed loan from IndusInd Bank to purchase two commercial vehicles. The applicant no. 1 is the Branch Manager and the Applicant No. 2 was the Recovery Officer in the said bank. The deceased defaulted in payment of loan installments. It is stated that as per the advice of the Applicant No. 2 the deceased sold one of the vehicles to one Bhushan More, despite which he was unable to clear the loan amount. It is alleged that the Applicants persistently demanded repayment of the outstanding dues. Upon failure of the deceased to pay the outstanding loan, the bank attached the vehicle. The Respondent No. 2 claimed that the Applicants refused to release the vehicle despite repeated requests by the deceased and assurance to pay the loan. The Respondent No. 2 has alleged that his father committed suicide because of the harassment meted out to him by these Applicants. Based on these allegations, the aforestated crime came to be registered.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose offfence under Sec. 306 of IPC. He, therefore, contends that in such circumstances compelling the Applicants, who are the officers of the Bank, to face criminal trial would be an abuse of the process of Court.

6. Per contra, learned APP submits that persistent demand for repayment of loan amount constitutes abetment. He contends that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The only question for our consideration is whether the first information report prima facie discloses the offence as alleged.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in above decision, while considering the scope and ambit of Sec. 107 and 306 IPC, referred to the previous decisions and held thus:

<WXY>28. While analyzing the provisions of Sec. 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Sec. 107 IPC, a twoJudge Bench of this Court in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan has observed as under:-

"13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence under Sec. 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Sec. 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Sec. 306 of the IPC which reads as under :-

"306. Abetment of suicide. -If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."14. Though, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-killing'. The word is derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium' , 'sui' means 'on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top