Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Himanshu Chorasia @ Himanshu Bhusan Chhotaray, Son of Lingaraj Chhotaray - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.344 of 2019
Decided on : 30-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Adv
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence to be made out, there must be a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the alleged offence, and vague allegations without supporting evidence are not sufficient to constitute an offence.
Headnote:
Abetment - Criminal Intimidation - Sections 109, 304A and 507 of the IPC - Section 304A deals with homicide by negligence, Section 507 provides punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation, and Section 109 provides punishment of abetment. The court found that none of the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR were attracted against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR filed against him under Sections 109, 304A, and 507 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner's mental torture led to the death of the informant's son, who was an employee of HDFC Bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that none of the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR were attracted against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of mental torture leading to the death of the informant's son and whether the offences alleged in the FIR were made out.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the vague allegation of mental torture and the absence of any direct nexus between the petitioner's actions and the death of the deceased did not constitute the offences alleged in the FIR.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR of Civil Lines P.S. Case No.401 of 2018.
Key Points: - The court quashed the FIR because none of the ingredients of the alleged offences were attracted [8000472550022][8000472550024]. - Section 304A requires death by rash or negligent act with a direct nexus to the death, which was not established here; vague mental cruelty allegations are insufficient [8000472550012] (!) (!) . - There is no allegation of threatening injury to person, reputation, or property to constitute criminal intimidation under Section 503; absence of such threats voids Section 507 and 503 allegations [8000472550016] (!) (!) . - Section 109 requires abetment of an offence; absence of an identified offence abetted means no liability under Section 109 [8000472550018][8000472550020]. - The informant's and witnesses’ statements do not provide direct evidence of a rash/negligent act or direct nexus by the petitioner leading to death [8000472550012][8000472550019]. - High Court emphasized abuse of process if prosecution proceeds when no offence is made out on face value of the allegations [8000472550021]. - FIR Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 401 of 2018 was quashed; writ petition allowed [8000472550024][8000472550025]. - Facts: deceased Binay Kumar’s death occurred in hospital after arrival at 9:15 a.m.; no direct interaction shown between petitioner and the deceased causing death (!) (!) (!) . - The State’s investigation did not reveal witnesses supporting the mental torture allegations; investigation to be concluded with report [8000472550005][8000472550006]. - Legal interpretation: 304A requires a direct nexus; 503/507 require specific threats; 109 requires abetment causing an offence; none present here (!) (!) [8000472550015][8000472550013].
What is the basis for quashing an FIR under Article 226 when the allegations do not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged?
What is the essential nexus required between the alleged act and death for offences under IPC sections 304A, 507, and 109?
What are the elements required to establish criminal intimidation and abetment under Sections 503, 109 of the IPC in this case?
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) of Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 401 of 2018 registered under Sections 109, 304A and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
3. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the informant Bhagwat Pandey that he received a call on 27.09.2018 at 10:18 a.m. from Mobile No.9560710103 on his Mobile No.7717704869. The caller said that he is an employee of HDFC Bank, Gaya. He informed that the condition of his son is not good and requested to him come immediately. At that time, he was in Patna Secretariat. He informed his son-in-law, Bharat Pandey immediately about the contents of the call he received. Another call from Mobile No.9931279780 was received at his house on Mobile No.7717704869 and it was informed that his son has died. Thereafter, he along with his son-in-law and his own brother Laxman Pandey and his friend Dinesh Pandey went to Abhay Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘AIMS’), Gaya. They reached there at about 3:45 p.m.. At that time, several employees of the bank were present in AIMS. One Himanshu Chorasia @ Himanshu Bhusan Chhotaray claiming himself to be Manager of the bank informed him that his son Binay was working in the bank with him. When he asked from him as to how he died, he disclosed that his son had arrived in the bank at about 9:15 a.m.. After occupying his seat, he took water and two biscuits and suddenly, fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to AIMS where the doctor conducted his ECG and disclosed that he was brought dead. Having received the body of his son, he brought the same to Patna in an ambulance. He reached at his residence at about 9:00 p.m. and performed the cremation at Gulabi Ghat, Patna about 2:00 a.m. on 28.09.2018. After cremation, when he came back to his house, a telephone call was received by his son-in-law. The callers disclosed themselves to be the friends of his deceased son. They further disclosed that the main cause of the death of his son was the mental torture meted to him by the petitioner Himanshu Chorasia. They further disclosed that on 27.09.2018 when his son had arrived in the bank, the Manager had subjected him to severe mental torture, which he could not bear and lost his senses. Since he had fallen down, several employees tried to provide him the immediate assistance. They were trying so that he may regain his consciousness but, when their efforts did not yield any result for about 20-25 minutes, he was taken to AIMS where doctor declared him brought dead. They further disclosed that the mental cruelty meted out to the deceased can be assessed from the official e-mail sent to the deceased. On inquiry, it was found that the messages made by the deceased with his fellow employee had been deleted from the mobile of his son.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement, the information suspected that due to the mental torture meted out by the petitioner, his son had died.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the FIR are an afterthought. The petitioner is a Cluster Manager of the HDFC Bank, Wholesale Banking, Gaya. His role is limited to providing leadership, management and development of staff and volunteers within area of responsibility through effective work force, planning, recruitment and selection. The deceased son of the informant was working as an authorizer. He had jointed the bank on 12.02.2018 and was confirmed on 12.08.2018. His duty was to report to the Branch Manager. There was no direct interaction between the petitioner and the deceased son of the informant. He contended that allegation of death due to mental cruelty is not supported by any evidence. The entire evidence is based on wild suspicion, surmises and conjecture. When the conditio
