SUKUMAR PRAMANICK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-165
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 05,2019

Sukumar Pramanick Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHA ARORA,J. - (1.) Petitioners have assailed the order dated 14/6/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court III Krishnagar Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VI (June) 2017/ Sessions Case No. 48(9)2013 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 696 of 2011 dated 30/6/2011 under section 306/34 I.P.C. whereby a petition filed by the accused persons/petitioners herein praying for their discharge from the said case was rejected. By the order impugned the trial Court framed charge under section 306/34 IPC against the present petitioners and posted the case for evidence. Petitioners have sought for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding which is pending before the trial Court.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the instant application may be summarized as follows: On 30/6/2011 the opposite party no. 1 herein/complainant lodged a written complaint at Kotwali P.S. alleging offence under section 306 IPC against the petitioners. According to the aforesaid written complaint, deceased Uday Sadhukha, son of the complainant was working as a manager in the hotel of the petitioner no. 1 who opened a bank account in the name of Uday at UCO Bank, Sakshi branch and forcibly obtained his signature in the blank cheque book whereafter he took the cheque book and the pass book from him. In August 2010 Uday left the job in the hotel of the petitioner no. 1 and returned to his village at Senpur within P.S. Kotwali in the district of Nadia. The cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/- bearing Uday's signature being presented to the bank by the petitioner no. 1 was dishonoured whereafter a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against Uday. It is further alleged that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 would threaten Uday over phone. Being terrorized, Uday committed suicide on 26/6/2011. Prior to his death, Uday had written a suicide note alleging that the petitioner no. 1 was responsible for his suicide. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint the criminal proceeding being Kotwali P.S Case No. 696 of 2011 dated 30/6/2011 under section 306 IPC was initiated. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under section 306/34 IPC against the petitioners herein.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no proximate link or nexus between the alleged abetment and the commission of suicide. The complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the deceased on 22/2/2011 and summons was ordered to be issued on 19/5/2011. Deceased committed suicide on 26/6/2011 prior to the issuance of bailable warrant against him on 4/7/2011. It is canvassed that the allegations in the FIR and the materials relied upon do not come within the purview of "abetment" as defined in section 107 IPC. Learned counsel contended that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide, the offence under section 306 IPC is not attracted. To fortify his argument learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh versus State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2010)3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1048 paragraph 12, Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 917 paragraphs 16 and 17, S.S. Chheena versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another reported in (2010)3 C Cr LR (Supreme Court)1 paragraph 28 and M. Mohan versus State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011)3 Supreme Court Cases 626 Paragraphs 17, 37, 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the case of State of Karnataka versus L. Muniswamy and Others reported in (1977)2 Supreme Court Cases 699 paragraphs 4 and 10 in support of the submission that at the stage of framing charge it is the duty of the trial Court to consider judicially whether the materials relied upon if unrebutted, are sufficient to sustain the charge for the offence alleged.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.