Mere threats and actions driven by business rivalry, without a clear mens rea and direct act intended to push the deceased into committing suicide, do not constitute abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners/accused for quashment of FIR No.37/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC at Police station Kotwali, District.

2. As per the prosecution, on 28.01.2024 an intimation was received as regards death of one Vijay Kushwaha, proprietor of Om Shanti Bhojnalaya near bus stand Shajapur. On the said intimation a merg was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which statements of witnesses were recorded from which it transpired that Vijay was running a restaurant and the petitioners were also running their own restaurant nearby and there was business rivalry between them.

The petitioners were not happy with the deceased on account of him doing his business which was resulting in loss of their business. They used to talk to the customers of the deceased and had threatened him and had told him that they will get his restaurant closed. They had done the same on 27.01.2024 also. Due to the constant threats by petitioners the deceased felt harassed and eventually committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. Upon completion of the investigation, the FIR has been registered against the petitioners as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. The entire allegations as leveled against the petitioners even if taken to be true at their face value do not amount to an offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. There is no allegation against the petitioners of either instigating or abetting the deceased in any manner to commit suicide and it cannot be said that due to acts of the petitioners the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. He had various other legal remedies available to him.

4. The act alleged against the petitioners is only to the effect that on account of business rivalry they had threatened the deceased and had told him that they would get his restaurant closed and had also been talking to the customers in that regard. The same cannot in any manner be said to be abetment or instigation or even a remote cause for the deceased to commit suicide. It is hence submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioners be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitioners and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.

7. Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the element of instigation. The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2002 SC 1998), has opined as under :- 13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion.”

8. In the case of Sanju (supra), the accused allegedly told the deceased ‘to go and die’. Yet Apex Court opined that it does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. In the instant case, if story of prosecution is read and believed as such, it will be clear that the petitioners had threatened the deceased on account of business rivalry between them that they will get his restaurant closed and had talked to his customers.

9. The ancillary question is whether his acts fall within the ambit of Section 30