Point of Law: Abatement of suicide - Quash of criminal proceedings - summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 77/2019, whereby the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned MM-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi accepting the closure report qua only the present petitioner has been set aside. Insofar as the order of learned Magistrate accepting the closure report qua the two police officers is concerned, the same was upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of FIR No. 140/2016 registered under Section 306 IPC at P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi. It was submitted that the aforesaid FIR was registered in pursuance of a complaint dated 22.01.2015 filed by respondent No. 2 (Ms. Paramjit Kaur Grewal) against the petitioner and two police officers namely SI Jagroop Singh and Ct. Vijender, nearly 44 days after the date on which suicide was committed by her husband, Mr. Arvinder Singh Grewal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased.)

3. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of USA, having interest in antique vintage motorcycles. While doing an online search, the petitioner came to know that one M/s Palli Motors, belonging to the deceased, was involved in the business of sale/purchase of vintage motorcycles. As the contact details of the deceased along with photographs of the motorcycles were displayed on the website http://www.flickr.com/photos/pallimotors, the petitioner contacted the deceased through an e-mail dated 27.05.2011 and expressed his desire to purchase a vintage BSA or Triumph or other British motorcycle from him. The deceased vide his reply e-mail dated 30.05.2011 quoted the price for two different BSA motorcycles i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- for BB31 BSA 350CC and Rs.2,70,000/- for WM20 BSA 500CC. The petitioner agreed to purchase the latter and as per instructions of the deceased, transferred a sum of USD 4,650 on 02.05.2012 in the account of one Narender Verma through banking channel, who acknowledged the receipt of the said amount through his E-mail dated 03.05.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the receipt of complete payment in the year 2012, the deceased did not handover the possession of the vintage motorcycle. On 11.11.2014, the petitioner came to India and on legal advice, had a legal notice dated 19.11.2014 issued to the deceased and Narender Verma. Later, a criminal complaint dated 27.11.2014 for offences punishable under Sections 420/406 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was also filed by him at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi against aforementioned persons. The petitioner, thereafter, left India on the intervening night of 5th and 6th December, 2014. On 09.12.2014, the deceased committed suicide and left behind a suicide note naming the present petitioner as the reason for taking the extreme step.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner only acted as per the legal advice given to him. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner had either threatened the deceased or interacted with him during his stay in India. It was further submitted that taking legal recourse to one’s remedy, by no stretch of imagination, amounts to abetment. It was also submitted that as the petitioner had left India on the intervening night of 5th and 6th December, 2014 and the suicide was committed by the deceased on 09.12.2014, the same cannot be said to be a direct result of any act of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(i) M. Mohan v. State reported as (2011) 3 SCC 626.

(ii) Rohit v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported as MANU/MH/2330/2020.

(iii) Rajesh @ Raja Yadav v. State of M.P. reported as 2016 SCC OnLine MP 9892.

(iv) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported