2007 Supreme(Del) 704

High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
PRASHANT MANCHANDA - Appellant
Versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI - Respondents
Crl. M. C. 6871 Of 2006
Decided On : 03/30/2007

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Registration of FIR - Abetment of suicide of a Police Inspector - Police is duty bound to register an FIR if an information relating to commission of a ‘cognizable offence’ is given - Deceased, an Inspector in Delhi Police was placed under suspension - A departmental enquiry was initiated against him - In petition filed before Administrative Tribunal, deceased made certain allegations against the Commissioner of Police and other officials of police - A summary of allegation issued against deceased - A stay order granted by Tribunal against departmental proceedings on request of deceased Inspector - During enquiry, deceased sought certain documents and made complaint to CVC - Deceased committed suicide after writing a suicide note addressed to India TV - In his suicide note, allegations made against the Commissioner of Police - After death of Inspector, his son made a complaint to SHO requesting them to register an FIR against Commissioner of Police by treating suicide note as dying declaration - Petitioner failed to show that his complaint or suicide note prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence u/s 306 IPC - Whether petitioner’s prayer could be allowed - (No).

       Held : In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be the immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 12th October, 2004. The deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or mala fide actions. (Para 11)

       I have gone through the material placed before this Court by both sides and it cannot be said that the Commissioner of Police acted merely on the basis of whims and fancies, without any material being there for suspending and initiating the inquiry. I consider that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the truthfulness of the allegations made by the deceased Inspector or into the truthfulness of allegations made by State against the deceased Inspector because that would amount to transversing the area which is not called for. Suffice it to say that the action of the Commissioner of Police prima facie was not without any basis and thereafter a departmental inquiry in accordance with law was initiated to give an opportunity to the deceased Inspector to put forward his version of defence. This departmental inquiry could not take off because of the action of the deceased Inspector who obtained stay order against the departmental inquiry and the said order continued for more than one year. I consider that the deceased had full opportunity to prove his innocence and his insistence that the departmental inquiry should not be held at all and that he was being malafidely dragged into an enquiry and his name was being slurred, cannot be a ground to hold that there was an instigation on the part of Commissioner of Police to abet the commission of suicide, even prima facie. The official acts are protected under Sections 76 to 80 of IPC. When a head of department or disciplinary authority suspends a subordinate, in the capacity of head of department, in exercise of powers conferred upon him and acts in accordance with law, the allegations of bias and malafides on the disciplinary authority or on the head of department, do not make the act having been done in bad faith nor such allegations change the character of the act. If the character of an official act is supposed to change by allegations, then no government official would ever be able to take a decision in case of any subordinate, howsoever corrupt he may be, howsoever insubordinate he may be. The allegations of mala fide are easy to make. The act done by an officer who has reasonably acted within the authority of law, is an official act and is protected under law since it is an act as per law. The act done by an officer as per law, cannot be judged on the basis of its effects and results. An act has to be judged on the basis of circumstances prevalent at the time when the act was done. The act of suspending the deceased Inspector was done by the Commissioner of Police in October, 2004 and the inquiry was initiated as a result of this act in January, 2005. Merely because after about two years, the deceased Inspector committed suicide the act done by the Commissioner of Police cannot be considered an act done with mala fide intention. An offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be committed because there is a relationship between the official Act and commission of suicide. Offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out only if an ‘instigation’ on the part of someone is shown. (Para 12)

       The petitioner has failed to show that his complaint or suicide note prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC or under any other provision of penal laws requiring registration of an FIR and further investigation. (Para 13)

       Result : Petition dismissed.