SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1801

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh AAG, Punjab, Mr. A.P. Kaushal

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 420, 34 and 120-B - The charges framed against the petitioner under the specified sections are based on the allegations of abetment of suicide following legal proceedings for cheque dishonour - The court emphasized that mere initiation of legal proceedings does not amount to abetment without evidence of coercion or instigation. (Paras 11, 20, 21)

(B) Abetment of suicide - The necessity of proving mens rea and intent to instigate or aid in the suicide is paramount; past judgements suggested that sensitivity of the deceased and context of interactions play a significant role in determining liability. (Paras 17, 18, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges related to the suicide of Rajnish Kumar, stemming from pre-existing financial disputes and various cheque dishonour cases against the deceased, who had alleged extortion and fraud regarding blank cheques given as security for loan applications. The deceased ultimately committed suicide, leading to allegations against the petitioner and others for abetting this act.

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to suggest direct instigation or coercion by the petitioner in the deceased's suicide, leading to the discharge of the petitioner from the charges framed against him.

Issues: The key issues included whether legal action taken against the deceased constituted abetment of suicide and whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere association with legal actions and the deceased's debts, without demonstrative coercion or manipulation, does not satisfy the standards for abetment under IPC.

Result: Revision petition is allowed; charges against the petitioner are set aside.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top