The judgment establishes that for conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a clear mens rea and active instigation or abetment leading to the suicide, and that mere demand for compensation or use of abusive language may not constitute abetment.

JUDGMENT

Raj Shekhar Attri, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.15 dated 17.1.2016 registered at Police Station DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana and all the consequent/subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a senior citizen and is a lawyer by profession having more than 44 years standing at the bar.

3. Deceased-Keshav was working as a domestic servant with Shri Deepak Malhotra. He found that said deceased Keshav was cleaning the car of its owner at about 1:00 p.m. on the ill-fated day. After cleaning the car, he put it in reverse gear and after taking turn, the car hit the flower pots, which were kept in front of the house of the petitioner and those were broken.

4. It is further alleged that thereafter, the owner of the house known as Kher came out of the house and took out Keshav deceased from the car and threaten him and gave him blows and used abusive language against him. The petitioner also demanded price of the broken flower pots. It is further alleged that the petitioner caught hold of the deceased from his hair who fell on the ground and all this was witnessed by the above said Deepak Malhotra. He tried to pacify the petitioner but the petitioner also used bad words qua him and also threatened Deepak Malhotra.

5. Thereafter, Keshav deceased went to his room and at about 3:00 p.m. it was found that he was hanging and committed suicide. On his statement, FIR was registered.

6. After completion of investigation, the challan was submitted before the Area Magistrate .

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the deceased were known to each other; as per allegations in the FIR, the deceased hit the car in the house of the petitioner, due to which, it caused damage to the flower pots and the petitioner demanded price of the broken flower pots. It was tortuous act of the deceased and due to this reason, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the informant. There is no proximate nexus between the act of the deceased and commission of suicide and the petitioner has been falsely implicated on behalf of his neighbour Deepak Malhotra.

9. It has been further argued that in fact the deceased committed suicide due to the conduct of his owner Shri Deepak Malhotra but in order to save his skin, the informant has projected a false story and got lodged the FIR against the petitioner from one Mr. Bishan Kumar who is the relative of the deceased.

10. It has been further argued that in fact on 17.1.2016, i.e., the ill-fated day, the petitioner had gone to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib Ji, New Delhi and distributed langer to the first batch and he saw one Nepali domestic help in front of his house in his car, who was in the process of driving back the car in front portion of the house of the petitioner, as a result of which, four flower pots placed outside the house were totally smudged and the petitioner reprimanded him and went inside his house. Even the petitioner was not known about the incident.

11. It has been further argued that there was absolutely neither any intention nor mens rea with regard to reprimanding the deceased and from a bare perusal of the material available on the record, no offence is made out with regard to abetment to suicide and there is absolutely no nexus between the acts of the petitioner and the suicide by the deceased. According to him, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner to face trial for offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat & anr; 2010 (8) SCC 628, M. Mohan vs. State Tr. Dy. Supdt. Of Police; 2011 (3) SCC 626, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh; 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 537, Rajesh vs. State of Haryana; 2019 (1) RCR (Criminal) 847 and of this Court in