Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-26290-2019 (O & M)
Decided On : 12-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of case fir under specific ipc sections (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of criminal complaints against deceased (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. establishes the background and allegations related to the deceased. (Para 4) |
| 4. description of the suicide and invocation of fir (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. details legal proceedings initiated against the deceased for dishonored cheques. (Para 14) |
| 6. petitioner's defense concerning legal actions (Para 15) |
| 7. state's position regarding the established offense (Para 16 , 22) |
| 8. clarification on abetment of suicide (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 9. discusses the legal framework surrounding abetment of suicide. (Para 23) |
| 10. final order on petition and quashing of fir (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of case FIR No.35 dated 29.05.2016 under Sections 306 , 34, 120-B IPC and 420 IPC (added later on) registered at Police Station Government Railway Police, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint bearing No.1969/2013 came to be instituted at the instance of the co-accused-Sharanjit Singh (proceedings qua him quashed vide order dated 07.10.2023 passed in CRR-3672-2018) against the deceased-Rajnish Kumar with respect to the dishonour of a cheque bearing No. 871744 dated 01.10.2013 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/-. The deceased came to be convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2015. The finding of the Court was that the cheque was dated 01.10.2013 and was supposed to have been lost on 18.12.2013 whereas the complaint had been filed on 20.11.2013. No evidence had been produced by the accused to substantiate his defence that the cheque had been lost and a DDR had been registered in this regard and that stop payment instructions had been given to the bank. Further, contrary stands had been taken of the cheques having been issued as security viz-a-viz they having been stolen. In the said proceedings, the statement of the deceased (accused therein Rajnish Kumar) was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in present case. The complainant is neither holder nor holder in due course in cheque in question. The cheque in question alongwith other cheques were taken by complainant from me by fraudulent means by complainant and without any sought of legally enforceable debt and liability. I have no outstanding liability or legally enforceable debt towards the complainant. As such there was no occasion for me to submit the instant cheque to the complainant. The instant cheque was given as security towards the loan of acquittance and the complainant has misused the cheque cheques. I am entitled benefit of acquittal".
3. Jaskirat Singh (proceedings qua him quashed vide order dated 07.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-46031-2019), brother of Sharanjit Singh filed a criminal complaint bearing No.1991 dated 21.11.2013 against the deceased-Rajnish Kumar with respect to the dishonour of a cheque bearing No.238130 dated 03.10.2013 for an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. The deceased came to be convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2015. In the said proceedings, the statement of the deceased (accused therein Rajnish Kumar) was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and is as under:-
"I am innocent. I am falsely implicated in this case. I have not taken any loan from anybody as alleged. I am Govt employee and regularly drawing salary per month in GPF account. There was no need of money as alleged at any point of time. Moreover there was no friendly relation between me and complainant and I met complainant first time in this present case. Some cheques in which some signed and some blank has lost for which two DDR
AI
Legal proceedings for debt recovery, in absence of specific instigation evidence, do not amount to abetment of suicide as per Section 306 IPC.
The court ruled that mere invocation of legal remedies or being named in a suicide note does not prove abetment without credible evidence linking the accused to the act of instigation.
Mere initiation of legal proceedings against a debtor does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is clear evidence of coercion or intent to instigate.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be a direct and intentional act by the accused that leads to the suicide, which was not present in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a proximate and live link between alleged instigation or illegal acts and the subsequent suicide, the absence of mens rea and po....
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intent to drive the deceased to suicide; mere harassment is insufficient.
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
