IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
ROHIT ARYA, J.
Abhay Kumar Katare – Appellant
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5952 OF 2018
Decided on : 26-03-2018
Abetment - Criminal Proceedings - Section 306 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an employee, committed suicide and the applicant was charged with abetment under section 306 IPC based on email exchanges and statements of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the material on record did not suggest the applicant's intention to provoke, incite, or instigate the deceased to commit suicide, as required for abetment under section 306 IPC.
Issues: Allegations of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC based on email exchanges and witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: To constitute abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and a close proximity between the alleged act and the act of suicide. The court analyzed the email exchanges and witness statements to determine the absence of the essential ingredients of abetment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the criminal proceedings, and discharged the applicant.
Rohit Arya, J
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C., is presented seeking quashment of the challan (Annexure P/1 colly.), cognizance order (Annexure P/2) and the consequent entire criminal proceedings arising out of RCT No.97/2018 for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore.
2. Petitioner is working as a Manager with DCM Shriram Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) and posted at its Indore office. Sumit Vyas, the deceased; had joined the Company at Indore office in the year 2011 on the post of Accounts Officer and worked under the supervision of the petitioner. He was promoted to the post of Section Officer. Though he worked with the Company for about six years but, he tendered resignation on number of times and thereafter withdrew the same. On 03/11/2012, the deceased sent an email and sought to be relieved of his duties for personal reasons and likewise in September, 2014 with a similar request but, at a later stage, he withdrew the same. In early 2017 since the petitioner noticed lapses and negligence in the discharge of duties by the deceased and another co-worker J.P.Yadav posing problems with the accounting system of the Company, the petitioner made a communication to the superior, S.K.Grover as regards account related issues with a copy to the deceased and co-worker J.P.Yadav by an email dated 28/04/2017 bringing to his notice the deficiencies and shortcomings to the effect that he is unable to control the accounting system due to negligence of the account staff and with a request to take some hard action or in the alternative the deceased and J.P.Yadav may be transferred to different department. S.K.Grover vide email dated 29/04/2017 called upon the deceased and Yadav for explanation.
As such, it was a pure official communication by the petitioner in the routine manner updating the superior officer about the work in the establishment.
The deceased instead of offering explanation in response to the email dated 29/04/2017 sent by S.K.Grover had made a request for termination of his service or transfer to some other place with immediate effect through email dated 03/05/2017. Nevertheless, the deceased did not make any allegations of cruelty, harassment or abuse of authority by the petitioner. Thereafter, the deceased continued to work in the same office. On 25/05/2017, the deceased sent an email titled as “Good Bye” to S.K.Grover wherein he once again disclosed his intention to leave the Company with a note of thanks to the superiors and coworkers for their support in discharge of his duties in the Company and wishing them as well, which reads as under:
“From: Sumit vyas [smo.ssp@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 May 2017 02.18
To : SKGrover
Subject: Good Bye
Dear Sir,
After more than 5-10 years of worked with Demshriram I have a lots of memories with Demshirram Ltd., I now bid adieu to the wonderful team and people I met here.
The organization has not only helped med to learn lots & grow as a professional, but has also helped me to build bonds that will always hold a special place in my heart.
I would like to take a moment and thank everyone for their support, patience, and friendship over the past five year. It was wonderful to work with each one of you.
Thanks to Mr. Sandeep Jain Sir & All My Team Members for their guidance. At Last but not least I am thank full to my Mentor Mr. SK Grover sahab who always wish to grow in my personal & professional career. Also thanks to all team members Zo-Indore.
Lastly one thing I would like to say sorry if I hurted some one during the professional/personal talk.”
The superior officer, S.K.Grover responded to the email on 25/05/2017 itself giving the deceased to understand that he will be relieved after completion of all the pending work and cautioned that it was not the way to leave the Company. By another email of the same date, S.K.Grover further informed the deceased that he will be relieved by 15th June, 2017
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605
Devendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 7 SCC 495
M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837
State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal & Another AIR 1994 SC 1418
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others
State of Haryana & others Vs. Bhajan Lal & others
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., & others Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.