Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.G. Avachat, J.
Mahima Pravin Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 469 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - Criminal Procedure Code, Sec. 156(3); Indian Penal Code, Sec. 306 - The court discussed the obligation of police to register FIRs upon receiving information of cognizable offenses, emphasizing that the police must investigate allegations of abetment of suicide. The court highlighted the necessity of mens rea in establishing abetment under Sec. 306 of IPC, concluding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate intent to abet suicide, thus influencing the decision to set aside the order directing an FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a mother and daughter, were accused of abetting the suicide of Manav, the son of the respondent, following a tumultuous romantic relationship. After a quarrel, Manav committed suicide, leading the complainant to file a report with the police, which was not acted upon. The complainant subsequently sought a direction from the Metropolitan Magistrate to register an FIR under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which was initially denied, prompting a revision application that was later granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish the necessary mens rea for abetment of suicide. The WhatsApp conversations and the context of the relationship indicated a lovers' quarrel rather than an intention to drive Manav to suicide. The court emphasized that the police must investigate allegations of cognizable offenses but concluded that the evidence did not support the claim of abetment.
Issues: Whether the allegations made in the application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. disclosed a cognizable offense of abetment of suicide under Sec. 306 of the IPC, and whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing the registration of an FIR was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for an FIR to be registered, the complaint must disclose a cognizable offense. It emphasized the necessity of mens rea in abetment cases and concluded that the evidence presented did not establish intent to abet suicide, thus the order directing an FIR was not sustainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing the registration of an FIR, concluding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute a cognizable offense.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
2. The challenge in this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to a judgment and order dtd. 19/1/2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Revision Application No.688 of 2022. Vide the judgment and order impugned herein, the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate on 19/7/2022 has been set aside with a direction to Senior Inspector of Tromby Police Station, Mumbai to register FIR and make investigation on the basis of a report made by the Applicant, Prakash Lalwani on 23/2/2021. Thus, what has been challenged herein is an order passed under Sec. 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Petitioner No.2. They are residents of Green Acres Bungalows, Din Quarry Road, Panjarpole, Deonar, Mumbai, a housing society. The respondent No.2 is also the resident of the same housing society. Master Manav (deceased) was 24 years old son of the respondent No.2. Both, Manav and Petitioner No.1-Mahima, had a romantic relationship inter se for little over two years. There was a break-up in the relationship. It short lived. The relationship resumed. On 1st December, both, Manav and Petitioner No.1, had gone out for dinner. They returned to the society by 12.00 midnight. There was an intense quarrel between the two in the parking lot of the society. After a while, P.W.1 went to her residence. The telephonic conversation through WhatsApp chat continued between the two. Manav committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope on the terrace of his residence. It was by 2.00 a.m. The complainant, after having realised the same, rushed Manav to hospital, but in vain.
4. It is the case of the complainant that Petitioner No.1 abetted commission of suicide by Manav. A report to that effect was lodged with Tromby Police Station. The police did not take cognizance. The Commissioner of Police was, therefore, approached. He too did not respond. The complainant, therefore, approached the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate with an application under Sec. 156(3). The learned Magistrate, however, directed the complainant to appear and give his statement on oath (verification). The complainant, therefore, took exception to the said order by preferring the revision application.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application with the following observations :
<WXY>14. ....Once a report is made to the Police alleging the commission of cognizable offence it is their duty to register a first information report and proceed to carry out the investigation. The allegations made by the applicant prima facie pertain to an allegations of an offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC, which is a cognizable offence triable by the Court of Sessions. The allegation shows that the evidence if any about abetment or ratio the prima facie evidence regarding the abetment would be the Whatsup chat between the deceased and respondent no.2, which are alleged to have been deleted by the respondent no.2. In such case, the Whatsup chat will have to be retrieved. Forensic and other evidence will have to be collected. It is not possible for an individual to carry out such exercise. The investigation by the police machinery would be imperative.
15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16. Once a report disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is made, the proper course of action would be to register a first information report on the basis of the allegations disclosing commission of an offence. To register offence would not be the end of the road either for the police or for the respondent no.2. The police officers can thereafter conduct a neutral, impartial and objective investigation into the allegations, and if on the basis either investigation they come to a conclusion that an offence is committed, they can file a charge-sheet on the other hand, if the inv
The court established that mere allegations of a quarrel do not suffice to prove abetment of suicide under Sec. 306 IPC without clear evidence of intent (mens rea) to instigate the act.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or proximity, along with mens rea.
The power to investigate is exclusively reserved for the police officers, and the High Court cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to inves....
The need for a responsible invocation of the power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code for registration of FIRs.
The magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and the registration of an FIR is mandatory only when a cognizable offence is disclosed; otherwise, the applica....
Revision maintainable against dismissal of Section 156(3) CrPC application; prior police complaints evidenced by postal receipts satisfy precondition; forgery to obtain scheme benefits discloses cogn....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
