DEEPAK JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-57
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 27,2013

Deepak Jain and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Criminal Case No. 3889 of 2007, State v. Rajeev Jain and others under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pursuant to the FIR/Case Crime No. 4491 of 2006 under Section 306 IPC. As per the FIR, Tejpal Singh took admission in B.Ed. course in the month of May, 2006 in Arihand College of Education, Baredhi Rajputan, Roorkee, District Haridwar; at the time of seeking admission, petitioners herein, being office bearer of the Management Committee and College told Tej Pal Singh and his father, informant herein, that they would have to pay Rs. 70,000/- towards the annual fee for getting admission under the Management Quota; Rs. 53,000/- were paid to the College at the time of taking admission while balance Rs. 17,000/- were agreed to be paid till June, 2006; when demand draft of Rs. 17,000/- was handed over to Mahesh Sharma on 26.06.2006, he refused to accept the demand draft and asked for Rs. 90,000/-; thereafter Tej Pal Singh came back to Kashipur at his residence and he was looking depressed; informant and other family members did counselling of Tej Pal Singh and told him that extra money, as asked by the college, would be arranged very shortly, therefore, Tej Pal Singh should go back to the college; on this Tej Pal Singh went back to his college at Roorkee; thereafter Tej Pal Singh was told by the petitioners to inform his family members to arrange Rs. 97,000/-; again Tej Pal Singh came back on 08.08.2005; informant again did counselling of Tej Pal Singh and told him that very soon he would arrange the money and he (informer) would go to the college to speak to the Management; meanwhile, in the inter intervening night of 15/16 August, 2006, Tej Pal Singh committed suicide by consuming poison; Tej Pal Singh left suicide note to the effect that petitioners are responsible for his death.
(2.) If FIR or criminal proceedings are assailed by the accused at the initial stage either under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court must examine as to whether from the contents and material collected, prima facie offence is made out, justifying the prosecution. If prima facie case is not made out, this Court must come forward to quash the same keeping in mind no innocent should be troubled/burdened to face a trial for the offence which on the face of it is not made out.
(3.) Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of S.S. Cheema v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010 12 SCC 190 has held as under: 27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait jacked formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.;


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