Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
Joyeeta Saha and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R.2546 of 2012
Decided on 31.7.2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of quashing proceedings – However, it is also incumbent upon High Court to discern complainant’s case of accusations whether to be indistinct, vague, cryptic, devoid of particular materials to prima facie constitute ingredients legally sustainable for commission of an offence – Mere vague assertions based on assumptions and suspicions cannot be entertained to comprise a prima facie case to proceed with trial to the predicament and unwarranted rigour of accused persons. (Para 11)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 108] – Abetment of suicide – Rejection of prayer for discharge – In order to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC, there should be instances of abetment under Section 107 of IPC – Statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 164 of Cr.P.C. did not reveal that victim was subjected to prolonged and continuous mental or physical torture or cruelty by petitioners which propelled him to commit suicide barring any other alternative – Being an adult male, victim had ample volition and liberty to communicate with his family members disregarding displeasure of petitioners – Human psychology and mental state cannot be generally equated which varies from person to person – Egregious act on part of a person from intractable emotions, depressions cannot be perceived or fathomed – Victim had on his own locked petitioner wife in room from outside and hanged himself – It was beyond knowledge and control of petitioner wife to have imminently rescued victim from hanging himself – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 12, 13, 19 and 20)
Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.—The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of proceeding being G.R. No. 4137/2011 pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court, No.2, Barasat corresponding to Baguihati Police Station Case No. 469/2010 dated 28.10.2010 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein including the order dated 26.06.2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court, No.2, Barasat thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners from being discharged from the instant case.
2. Petitioner no.1 married one Gopal Saha, son of Tushar Kanti Saha, the de facto complainant of the instant case on 02.03.2010 and resided separately at G.A. 56, Narayantala Road, Drishti Apartment, 2nd floor, Police Station Baguihati, Kolkata- 700059, at the annoyance of the de facto complainant and his wife.
3. On 28.10.2010 at about 12:15 a.m., the de facto complainant learnt his son, the victim committed suicide by hanging himself in his dining room with a nylon rope on 27.10.2010 at 11:00 p.m. The de facto complainant went to the aforesaid flat and found the dead body of his son.
4. Subsequently, the de facto complainant father of the deceased lodged a written complaint at the Baguihati Police Station on 28.10.2010, inter alia, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners.
5. Allegedly the death of the victim was due to suppression of an earlier marriage of petitioner no.1 which caused the deceased to suffer mental agony compelling him to commit suicide at the instance of the petitioners.
6. Baguihati Police Station Case No.469/2010 dated 28th October, 2010 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was subsequently registered.
7. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet being No.3/2011 dated 15.01.2011 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against both the petitioners.
8. The petitioners filed a petition praying for discharge on 15th May, 2012 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat, which was objected through an application filed on behalf of the State.
9. On 26.06.2012 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Barasat rejected the prayer of the petitioners for discharge and the date 17.08.2012 was fixed for framing of charge.
10. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as the State.
11. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is restrictive in nature. It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting the relief sought for in terms of quashing the proceedings. However, it is also incumbent upon the High Court to discern the complainant’s case of accusations whether to be indistinct, vague, cryptic, devoid of particular materials to prima facie constitute the ingredients legally sustainable for commission of an offence. Mere vague assertions based on assumptions and suspicions cannot be entertained to comprise a prima facie case to proceed with the trial to the predicament and unwarranted rigour of the accused persons.
12. Apparently the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code as well as Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not reveal that the victim was subjected to prolonged and continuous mental or physical torture or cruelty by the petitioners which propelled him to commit suicide barring any other alternative. It had been alleged that the victim was not allowed to meet his parents and other members of the family to the disgust and umbrage of the petitioners. The victim and his wife resided at a separate accommodation and there was no indication on the records of the victim being captivated and confined at a certain place restricting his freedom of movement preventing and precluding him to contact his parents and family mem
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of....
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct acts of instigation or aid are required, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct acts of incitement closely linked to the suicide, and mere denial of marriage does not constitute abetment.
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent and direct actions by the accused that compel the victim to commit suicide; emotional distress alone is insufficient.
Denial of marriage does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
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
