IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Sharanjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 3672 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the case involving dishonored cheques. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. complaint and conviction details regarding dishonoured cheques. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. initiation of legal actions does not imply harassment. (Para 11) |
| 5. arguments raised by petitioner regarding lack of evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's reasoning on the elements of abetment and mens rea. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. conclusion and ruling on the petitioner's discharge. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. final conclusion discharging the petitioner from the charges. (Para 23) |
Judgment
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner and others under Sections 420 , 306, 34 and 120-B IPC.
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 petitioner-Sharanjit Singh 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 (Annexure P-1). 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. One Jaskirat Singh, brother of the petitioner 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 has been lodged by me in police. The bank was duly intimated by me to make stop payment with regard to my post cheques. The complainant has found my lost cheques. Since then he is blackmailing me to flee easy money. The cheques are being misused by the complainant and his relatives and his close friends.
Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab
Kashmiri Lal versus State of Haryana 2008 4 RCR(Cri) 497
Netai Dutta versus State of Wes Bengal
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
S.S. Chheena versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 66
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana
AI
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.
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.
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.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, instigation or abetment must be proximate to the suicide, and mere demand for money does not suffice as sufficient cause for abetment.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.