Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Dr. J.P. Bhargav And Anr. – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Special Crime Branch Lko And Anr. – Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. – 6195, 6205, 6368 of 2016
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 306, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 228 – Saving of inherent power of high court – Farming of charge – Offence of murder – Punishment of criminal conspiracy – Applicants have prayed for quashing of charge-sheet filed in FIR No.0532015S0001, Case No.RC01(S)/2015/CBI/SCB/LKO, under Sections 120-B read with Section 306 and 306 IPC and for quashing of order passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) in Case No.03 of 2016 by means of which cognizance of offence has been taken and applicants have been summoned to face trial – Held, From aforesaid discussions, it is evident that deceased perceived harassment by applicants as he was transferred in frequent successions on administrative grounds – Suicide-note, as has been extracted herein above even does not remotely suggest that the accused-applicants had any intention to aid, instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide – Transferring deceased, asking him to handover charge and not sanctioning earned leave by itself would not constitute offence of abetment to commit suicide – There is no evidence collected by CBI to suggest that applicants intended by such act to instigate deceased to commit suicide – This Court is of view that all ingredients of instigation of abetment to commit suicide are completely absent in material collected during course of investigation and, therefore, it cannot be said that accused-applicants have committed any offence under Section 306 IPC – Perceived of harassment by deceased in hands of accused-applicants cannot be a ground for invoking offence under Section 306 IPC as it cannot be said that accused-applicants have abetted commission of suicide by playing any active role or by an act of instigation or doing certain acts to facilitate commission of suicide – Court is of view that applications are to be allowed and impugned charge-sheet and impugned proceedings are to be quashed – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') and gone through record of all the applications.
2. By way of these applications under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants have prayed for quashing of charge-sheet no.06 of 2016 filed in FIR No.0532015S0001, Case No.RC01(S)/2015/CBI/SCB/LKO, under Sections 120-B read with Section 306 and 306 IPC and for quashing of the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Lucknow in Case No.03 of 2016 by means of which cognizance of the offence has been taken and the applicants have been summoned to face trial.
3. As it comes out, FIR No.0532015S0001 dated 15.01.2015 came to be registered at Police Station CBI, SCB, Lucknow under Sections 302/120-B IPC by the CBI pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8240 (M/B) of 2013 (Smt. Mithlesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others).
4. This Court, vide the said order, transferred investigation of Crime No.0113 of 2012, under Sections 302/120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri to the CBI.
5. Allegations, as contained in the FIR, are that husband of informant, Smt. Mithlesh Sharma, Mahendra Kumar Sharma (deceased), aged about 55 years, was posted at Community Health Center, Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri as Senior Clerk; he was on leave from 02.11.2011 to 26.11.2011 on account of marriage of his daughter; on returning back, he was shown to be absent from office for the said period and lock of his almirah, kept in his office, was broken opened and certain documents and files were missing from the almirah; the deceased informed Chief Medical Officer ( for short "CMO"), Dr. J.P. Bhargav about breaking lock of the almirah and missing of the files and documents; the CMO asked him to handover charge to Rajesh Hans; the deceased was directed to join his service at Primary Health Center, Bijuwa.
6. It is alleged that the deceased requested the CMO to issue order of his transfer in writing and enquire about missing of the documents, files and cheques, as they were connected with National Rural Health Mission ( for short 'NRHM') Scam. It was further alleged that the case of NRHM Scam was being conducted by the CBI and the deceased was apprehensive of the interrogation/questioning by the CBI regarding missing of documents and files; the CMO assured the deceased that he would look into the matter regarding missing of files and documents and asked him to join at Primary Health Center, Bijuwa; on 30.01.2012, the deceased sent a letter to the CMO in respect of alleged missing of files and documents, but he did not join service and remained at his home; on 06.02.2012, Rajesh Hans, Clerk, Dr. S.C. Gupta, Superintendent, Kuldeep Mishra, President, Community Health Center, Pasgawan, and Munna Lal Verma, Secretary, U.P. Health Ministerial Association, Lakhimpur Kheri came to house of the deceased and told him that CMO had ordered him to join service at Bijuwa and some necessary documents were to be signed which in-turn had to be submitted to the investigating team of the CBI; the deceased had assured the aforesaid persons that he would go to Pasgawan next day; on 07.02.2012, the deceased left his house for Pasgawan and did not return after considerable time.
7. On 0.02.2012, Neeraj Sharma, son of the deceased, gave an information at the Police Station Kotwali Sadar, Lakhimpur Kheri, informing therein that his father had been missing since 07.02.2012; on 15.02.2012, the informant, wife of the deceased, received information that dead-body of her husband was lying at Community Health Center, Pasgawan; on this information, the informant reached at Community Health Center, Pasgawan and noticed numerous injuries on body of her husband, having mud and blood stained; the information believed that her husband was killed by Rajesh Hans, S.C. Gupta, Kuldeep Mishra, Munna Lal Verma at the instan
For a charge of abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient without a dire....
The judgment established that for conviction under Section 306 I.P.C, there must be a clear mens rea and active instigation or intentional aid by the accused in the commission of suicide.
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.
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.
Continuous harassment and threats can constitute instigation for abetment of suicide under IPC, necessitating careful examination of circumstances surrounding the act.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement, which was absent in this case.
The assessment of materials at the stage of consideration of charge is different from the appreciation of evidence at the trial stage, and the court must form an opinion based on the available materi....
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
