Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Reena - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 328 of 2015; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8124 of 2015
Decided On : 08-06-2020
Ramesh Gupta, Advocate, Ajay P Tushir, Advocate, Shailendra Singh, Advocate, Amit Ahlawat, Advocate, Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong suspicion and prima facie evidence to frame charges under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide.
Headnote:
ABETMENT - Criminal Law - Section 306 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 306 IPC - The court discussed the scope of interference U/s 397 Cr.P.C, the principles of framing charges under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C, and the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC. The court emphasized the need for strong suspicion and prima facie evidence to frame charges. The judgment highlighted the absence of abetment in the case and the importance of evaluating the material and documents on record to determine the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased committed suicide, leaving a suicide note blaming the petitioner for his death. The petitioner was charged under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide. The petitioner argued that there was no direct link between her actions and the deceased's suicide, and the impugned order of framing charge was passed without proper application of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suicide note did not show any abetment from the petitioner, who had been living separately from the deceased for three months before the suicide. The court concluded that the trial court failed to apply the law properly and set aside the order on framing of charge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be charged under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong suspicion and prima facie evidence to frame charges. It highlighted the absence of abetment in the case and the importance of evaluating the material and documents on record to determine the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
Final Decision: The present revision petition was allowed, and the order on framing of charge dated 23.03.2015 was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present Revision Petition U/s 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order on charge dated 23.03.2015 passed by Ld. ASJ, Delhi, thereby framing charges against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC in criminal case titled as "State Vs. Reena", FIR No. 185/2010 registered at P.S. Prasad Nagar.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the marriage between deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad and petitioner/accused Reena Prasad was solemnized on 17.04.2009 and thereafter they started residing together at Delhi. After sometime matrimonial disputes arose between them and the petitioner left the company of deceased on 28.06.2010 and went to live with her parents at Sikkim. It is alleged that alongwith her she took gold jewellery worth Rs. 15 Lakh and a cash of Rs. 3 Lakh which belonged to deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad. In regard to this, it is alleged that deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad had filed a complaint with the police on 29.06.2010. Deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad also filed two cases including a petition U/s 9 of the H.M.A. for Restitution of Conjugal Right. Despite that petitioner Reena refused to join the company of Rahul Kumar Prasad and also refused to return the jewellery and cash and it is alleged that because of this the deceased was suffering from depression and mental stress. It is alleged that deceased was regularly and continuously receiving telephonic threats to his life from the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.09.2010, deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad committed suicide by hanging himself. Deceased Rahul Kumar Prasad left a suicide note holding the petitioner and his family members responsible for his death.
3. Since the police refused to lodged the complaint, Pankaj Prasad, brother of the deceased filed a complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C read with Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the directions to lodge FIR against the accused persons. Pursuant to the application filed by complainant Pankaj Prasad, Ld. MM directed lodging of FIR against the petitioner and her relatives. However, for want of specific allegations against the relatives of the petitioner, they were kept in column No. 12 and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner only U/s 306 IPC.
4. I have heard Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the records of this case.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct and proximate link between the cruelties allegedly inflicted by the petitioner upon the deceased which resulted in his committing suicide. He further urged that the petitioner left the company of the deceased on 28.06.2010 and started living at her parent''s house at Sikkim i.e. she was not with the deceased 3 months prior to his committing the suicide. He further urged that since there was a matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the deceased so he has made false allegations regarding the petitioner taking away the gold jewellery and cash. He further urged that gold jewellery was her istridhan and allegations regarding taking cash are false and no threats were ever extended by the petitioner, and all the allegations are vague and false.
6. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of framing charge dated 23.03.2015 has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and in ignorance of law on the subject. He further urged that the petitioner was exonerated by the family members of the deceased including the complainant from any role in suicide and statements to that effect were recorded by the IO, therefore, no FIR was registered. He further urged that the charges must not be framed automatically and the court should not act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution. He further urged that atleast at the time of framing the charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material
