Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Abhay Kumar Katare v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 5952 of 2018 (Indore);
Decided on. 26.3.2018
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.107 r/w S. 306 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- applicant brought to notice of superior officer the lapses and negligence in discharge of duties by deceased with request to take hard action - deceased resigned and committed suicide 4 days later -- no material in challan papers to suggest or attribute positive act on part of applicant -- material on record does not suggest mental preparedness of applicant with intention to provoke, incite or instigate deceased to commit suicide -- alleged act of applicant has no nexus or proximity with suicide -- proceedings quashed.
Held : There is no allegation in the suicide note/email dated 15.9.2017 or in the challan that the deceased and the applicant either communicated or met with each other between 11.9.2017 and 15.9.2017. As such, neither with reference to the email of the applicant addressed to S. K. Grover dated 28.4.2017, nor that of the deceased's email dated 2.9.2017 could be said to be having nexus or proximity with the alleged act of committing suicide on 15.9.2017.
Facts and circumstances do not suggest mental preparedness of the applicant with an intention to provoke, incite or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, the deceased committed suicide after four days of cessation from employment with the Company. 2002(2) JLJ 275, (2010)8 SCC 628, AIR 2001 SC 3837, AIR 1994 SC 1418, (2009)16 SCC 605, AIR 2011 SC 1238, AIR 1960 SC 866, AIR 1976 SC 1947, AIR 1992 SC 604, AIR 2005 SC 9 and (2009)7 SCC 495 followed.
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 107 lgifBr /kkjk 306 && vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k dk vijk/k xfBr djus ds fy, vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr vfuok;Z la?kVd gS && nq"izsj.k esa mdlkus] izdksfir] míhIr] ;k izksRlkfgr djus ds vk'k; ls ekufld rS;kjh varoZfyr gksrh gS && mdlkus vkfn dh ,slh izfØ;k vkRegR;k djus ds ÑR; ls cgqr fudV gksuk pkfg, &&- O;fDr dks vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k ds vijk/k ds fy, vfHk;ksftr ;k nafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd fof/k dh iwoksZDr vis{kk iwjh ugha gksA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 275] ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 628] , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 3837] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 1418] ¼2009½16 ,l lh lh 605 rFkk , vkb vkj 2011 ,l lh 1238 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 14 ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 107 lgifBr /kkjk 306 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && vkosnd us dBksj dk;Zokgh djus ds vuqjks/k ds lkFk ofj"B vf/kdkjh dk /;ku e`rd }kjk drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa xyfr;ksa ,oa mis{kk dh vksj vkÑ"V fd;k && e`rd us R;kxi= fn;k vkSj 4 fnu i'pkr~ vkRegR;k dj yh && vkosnd dh vksj ls Li"V ÑR; bafxr ;k vkjksfir djus ds fy, pkyku ds dkxtkr esa dksbZ lkexzh ugha && vfHkys[kxr lkexzh ls e`rd dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, izdksfir] míhIr ;k mdlkus ds vk'k; ls vkosnd dh ekufld rS;kjh bafxr ugha && vkosnd ds vfHkdfFkr ÑR; dk vkRegR;k ls laca/k ;k fudVrk ugha && dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkRegR;k i=@bZesy fnukad 15-9-2017 esa vFkok pkyku esa dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha gS fd e`rd vkSj vkosnd us 11-9-2017 ,oa 15-9-2017 ds e/; ,d&nwljs ls laokn fd;k ;k feysA vLrq u ,l-ds- xzksoj dks lacksf/kr vkosnd ds bZesy fnuakd 28-4-2017 dk] vkSj u e`rd ds bZesy fnukad 2-9-2017 dk gh] 15-9-2017 dks vkRegR;k djus ds vfHkdfFkr ÑR; ls laca/k ;k fudVrk gksuk dgk tk ldrk gSA rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls e`rd dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, izdksfir] míhIr ;k mdlkus ds vk'k; ls vkosnd dh ekufld rS;kjh bafxr ugha gksrhA oLrqr% e`rd us daiuh ds lkFk fu;kstu lekIr gksus ds pkj fnu i'pkr~ vkRegR;k dhA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 275] ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 628] , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 3837] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 1418] ¼2009½16 ,l lh lh 605] , vkb vkj 2011 ,l lh 1238] , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 866] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 1947] , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 604] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 9 rFkk ¼2009½7 ,l lh lh 495 vuqlfjrA
Arya, J. -- 1. This application under section 482 CrPC, 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 3.11.2012, 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 28.4.2017 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 29.4.2017 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 29.4.2017 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 3.5.2017. 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 25.5.2017, 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 co-workers 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 me to learn lots and 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 25.5.2017 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 r
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.
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
