- (1.) AS these two criminal misc. petitions have arisen out of the same FIR bearing No. 304/2011 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Ajmer for offence under Sections 306 read with Section 120B IPC, therefore, with the consent of parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1117/2012 has been preferred by the accused -petitioner when the matter was at the stage of investigation with the prayer that the FIR and the investigation being made thereupon be quashed. During the course of pendency of this petition, the investigation was completed and charge -sheet for aforesaid offences was filed against the petitioner before the Court concerned and cognizance was taken vide order dated 19.7.2012 and the case was ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. Feeling aggrieved by the order of taking of cognizance, the accused -petitioner, therefore, filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3524/2012. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of these petitions may be stated as below: - (i) At the relevant time the petitioner was serving as Administrative Officer in Inspection Department of Life Insurance Corporation of India at Zonal Office in New Delhi and at that time he was also holding the post of All India Zonal Secretary of the Welfare Association of LIC SC/ST/Backward Employees/Officers Association whereas the deceased Shri Laxman Meena was working on the post of Assistant Divisional Manager, LIC of India's Sales Training Centre at Ajmer and he stayed during the period from 15.1.2011 to 4.2.2011 at the LIC Guest House, situated on the second floor of Laxmi Building, H -52, Connaught Place, New Delhi for some official work at Zonal Office of the LIC at New Delhi. On the first floor of the aforesaid building petitioner was also residing with his family as residential accommodation was allotted to him at that place. (ii) In the intervening night of 4.2.2011 and 5.2.2011, an unpleasant incident allegedly took place involving a lady with the deceased -Shri Laxman Meena and regarding that incident the Security Guard of the Guest House submitted a report on the next day in the Zonal Office and regarding the same incident the caretakers, of the Guest House also reported in writing to the Zonal Office vide their complaints dated 5.2.2011. (iii) On the basis of complaints so made the Zonal Office of the LIC took a decision to hold enquiry against Shri Laxman Meena vide note dated 17.8.2011 and an observation was sought from him by the Zonal Manager vide letter dated 30.8.2011. Shri Meena sought some more information and documents vide his letter dated 13.9.2011 which were provided to him and ultimately Shri Meena sent his detailed reply vide letter dated 4.10.2011. Thereafter, the enquiry was closed with an advise to Shri Meena vide Zonal Office note dated 12.10.2011 and the same was communicated to Shri Meena vide letter 27.10.2011. It was advised by the Zonal Office to Shri Laxman Meena to be careful in future. It is to be noted that no complaint was made by the deceased about the manner in which the incident occurred in the Guest House as narrated by him in the reply dated 4.10.2011 at an earlier date. (iv) Shri Laxman Meena was found dead in the morning of 2.11.2011 at about 11.15 a.m. in his rented house and in this respect Marg (death) Report No. 21/2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Ajmer on the basis of written report lodged by his landlord -Shri Gopal S/o. Shri Laxminarayan. During the enquiry conducted on the basis of the aforesaid report on 2.11.2011 itself a suicide -note allegedly written by the deceased was recovered from the room of the deceased and was taken into possession by the police and photostat copy of the same was furnished to the family members of the deceased also. In this letter some allegations were levelled against the petitioner which compelled the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide. (v) On 6.11.2011 brother of the deceased, Shri Ramjilal Meena lodged a written report at the Police Station alleging that his brother committed suicide due to conduct of some Officers of the LIC. In this report also allegations against the present petitioner were levelled. On the basis of the written report, FIR No. 304/2011 was registered for offences under Sections 306, 120B IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigation commenced. The file of the Marg Report No. 21/2011 was also tagged with the file of the aforesaid FIR. The investigation of the case was conducted by more than one Investigating Officer and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses were also recorded more than once and after usual investigation charge -sheet for offence under Section 306 IPC was submitted against the present petitioner alone.
(2.) IN support of the petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds: - (i) In the written report lodged on 2.11.2011 there is no mention that suicide -note was recovered from the room of the deceased and it was in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.11.2011 after registration of FIR, landlord -Shri Gopal for the first time stated that suicide -note was also recovered and, therefore, it is highly doubtful that suicide -note was recovered on 2.11.2011 itself. It has also not been explained if suicide -note was recovered on 2.11.2011 and family members of the deceased were also made aware of the same even then how the delay of five days was made in lodging the FIR. This clearly shows that the suicide -note is a forged and fabricated document. (ii) There is no evidence on record even prima facie involving the petitioner in the incident occurred in the intervening night of 4.2.2011 and 5.2.2011 in the Guest House of the LIC situated at New Delhi and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. (iii) In the detailed reply dated 4.10.2011 filed by the deceased to the show cause notice issued by the competent authority during departmental enquiry held on the basis of complaints made by the Security Guard and caretakers of the Guest House, no allegations of whatever nature were made against the petitioner holding him in any way responsible for the incident occurred in the Guest House. (iv) It is an admitted fact that on the basis of explanation dated 4.10.2011 furnished by the deceased the enquiry was closed and only advisory -note was made to the deceased to be careful in future and the same was communicated to him on 27.10.2011 and, therefore, there was no proximate or direct reason for the deceased to commit suicide on account of incident occurred at the Guest House in New Delhi and the enquiry held against him. (v) The petitioner at the relevant time was posted at New Delhi whereas the deceased was working at a far away place at Ajmer on a post which is much higher than the post on which the petitioner was working and there was no official connection between the posts held by them at the relevant time and, therefore, there was no question of any pressure and blackmail by the petitioner of the deceased resulting in his committing suicide. (vi) There are contradictory statements of the family members of the deceased more particularly in regard to the manner in which and the reason by which the petitioner pressurised and blackmailed the deceased and the role played by him which ultimately resulted into commission of suicide by the deceased. (vii) For an offence under Section 306 IPC to be made out, abatement by the accused is required to be shown but in the present case, there is no evidence even prima facie showing abatement by the petitioner which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. For an offence to be made out under Section 306 IPC, the suicide must be proximate/direct result of the instigation/abatement made by accused but in the present case, it cannot be said that the deceased -Shri Laxman Meena committed suicide due to incident of Guest House or enquiry held against him. The petitioner was not responsible for the incident of guest house or departmental enquiry.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner it is a fit case in which by exercising its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court must not only quash and set aside the order of cognizance but also the aforesaid FIR and the investigation conducted on that basis. It was also submitted that FIR and investigation can be quashed even after submission of charge -sheet whereas in the present case, order of cognizance has also been challenged by way of above criminal misc. petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in : (2002) 5 SCC 371, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and anr. reported in : (2010) 8 SCC 628, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and ors. reported in : AIR 1998 SC 128, Keki Hormusji Gharda and ors. Vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and Ors. reported in : (2009) 6 SCC 475 and State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors. reported in : AIR 1992 SC 604.;