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

2006 Supreme(All) 1277

[2006(9) ADJ 208 (All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : AMITAVA LALA AND SHIV SHANKER, JJ.
DR. SUBHASH MANCHANADA —Pettiioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME, U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 2016 and 2018 of 2006,
decided on 28th April, 2006)

Advocates appeared:
G.S. Chaturvedi, Anil Tiwari for the Petitioner; S.M.A. Kazmi, A.G.A., Sanjay Kumar Singh, for the Respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 226—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 306, 330 and 342—F.I.R. under—Quashing of under writ jurisdiction—Scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is narrower than the scope and ambit under Section 482, Cr.P.C.—Difference between the two powers—Under Article 226 of the Constitution the Court deals with stage of investigation only—Unique jurisdiction—Court cannot consider merits or demerits of the case—Petitions dismissed. [Paras 14 and 15]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The complainant is mother of the deceased Manoj Kumar. She filed the impugned first information report (hereinafter called as ‘F.I.R.’) on 06th April, 2005. It appears from the F.I.R. that her son was working in the Computer Cell of the Agra University since 20th May, 2000. He had been working with full honesty. There had been no complaint against her son. Suddenly he was falsely charged with leakage of one paper of B. Com. Second year without making any enquiry by the present Vice-Chancellor. He got him suffered serious mental and physical torture by asking his shadow to lift him and beat by detaining him in the locked room for 6-7 hours. Under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, Manchanda and Ramesh Sharma had also harassed him mentally. On the fateful day in the morning at about 10.25 a.m. he appended his signature by going to his duty and during his duty in the university he had eaten something on account of which his condition became critical. He was taken to the hospital where he died.

2. Before his death he wrote a letter/suicide note as follows :

“I Manoj Kumar is working in the confidential Computer Cell. I was summoned in the office by Dr. Subhash Manchanda, Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor on 03.04.2005 in the noon by telephone. And handed over the papers of B.Com and M.Com for typing. At that point of time Dr. HP. Sinha, Dr. A.K. Saxena, Hari Singh and Yogendra Kumar Savita were present there in the office. No enquiry was made from these persons and charges were imposed upon me directly. And the Vice-Chancellor has detained me for 6 hours in a room by asking his Security Guard for the same and have been beaten. Whereas no enquiry was done against additional other employees Dr. Subhash Manchanda, Dr. H.P. Sinha, and A.K. Saxena, Hari Singh and Yogendra Kumar Savita. And all charges were imposed upon me as I have leaked the papers of B.Com Second year I am being removed from the services.”

(As per translated copy annexed to page 37 of the writ petition without making any correction)

3. From the injury report we found seven ante mortem injuries. In the injury report it was said that cause of death could not be ascertained. Then viscera was preserved. Ultimately, the viscera report was made available, from which it appears that organochloro insecticide poison was available in the organs.

4. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short called as ‘I.P.C.’) speaks for abetment of suicide, as follows :

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

5. This offence is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by the appropriate Court of Session. The F.I.R. is not under Section 306 alone but also under Sections 330 and 342, I.P.C Those sections are not so major in comparison to Section 306, I.P.C. First one is made for voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property. The offence under such section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of first class. The second one i.e. Section 342, I.P.C. is made for punishment for wrongful confinement. This offence is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Therefore, the offence under Section 342 is not even major than Section 330. However, we have to take the offence as a whole under the sections in the F.I.R.

6. The moot point of the argument of Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, is that the date of occurrence is 03rd April, 2005 and the date of death and complaint is of 06th April, 2005. Therefore, it can not be held that cause of death is due to mental or physical torture allegedly done on 03rd April, 2005 i.e. three days before the date of occurrence.

7. He relied upon two judgements of the Supre














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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