C482/835/2008 of SMT SUNITA RAWAT AND ANOTHER Vs STATE AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL-Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 835 of 2008

Smt. Sunita Rawat and another …………. Applicantsversus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…………. Respondents

Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent State.

Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

The applicants, by means of present

application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the chargesheet dated 27.01.2008 (Annexure 8 to the accompanying affidavit) filed against them as well as the proceedings of criminal case no. 1336 of 2008, case crime no. 332 of 2007, State vs. Gurvinder Singh and others, under Section 306 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun.

2) An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against four accused persons, including the applicants, on 25.05.2007, in police station Rishikesh, as regards offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC. The informant wrote in the complaint that his son Vivek Kandwal consumed some poisonous substance on 23.05.2007. Vivek was admitted in Jolly Grant Hospital, where he died on 24.05.2007. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was

conducted. The last rites of the deceased were performed on 25.05.2007. When the family members of the deceased came back to their house after performing last rites of the deceased, they found diary written in the handwriting of the deceased. In the diary, the victim said that he was committing suicide because he was harassed and threatened by some persons. The victim mentioned the names of Gurvinder Singh alias Gurri, Tejpal Singh and Smt. Sunita Rawat w/o Madan Singh Rawat (applicant Madan Singh Rawat himself was not named in the FIR). The informant also alleged that he and his family members have danger to life and property and therefore suitable legal action be taken. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against four accused persons, including the applicants, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Cognizance on the said chargesheet was taken by the learned were Magistrate. Accused-applicants summoned to face the trial for the said offence. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred by two of the accused persons namely, Sunita Rawat and Madan Singh Rawat.

3) It has come in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the dispute between the parties was as regards raising boundary wall. The victim / deceased felt humiliated when some people from whom he sought cooperation

did not cooperate him and did not raise voice of dissent against the accused persons. In the suicide note, the victim accused Members of Block Development Council stating that they were doing injustice to him since his childhood. When the father of the victim was away, the Members of Block Development Council used to humiliate and torture him. The victim also wrote that on the date of writing the suicide note also, the Members of Block Development Council misbehaved with him and cut the trees standing in his courtyard. The victim objected that they should construct pathway in between the Kothari of Meharban Singh Thapliyal, but nobody paid any heed to his objection. Victim also requested in the suicide note to provide him 3½ Bigha of land. He also made request to take measurement of the land belonging to Madan Singh Rawat. The victim wanted the pathway to be constructed over the land of Madan Singh Rawat, Meharban Singh Thapliyal and Dharam Singh Rawat. In nutshell, he felt humiliated on the ground that the Members of Block Development Council were insisting upon the victim to agree to construct pathway over his land, instead of the land of Madan Singh Rawat and others. Victim committed suicide, as he felt that gross injustice was being done to him. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh and another vs State of M.P., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157; Netai Dutta vs State of West Bengal, 2005 AIR SCW 1326 and Sohan Raj Sharma vs State of Haryana, 2008

AIR SCW 3203 that cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken to be an act of abetting suicide. If some insulting behaviour is made out to somebody and he commits suicide, then the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not made out.

4) It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs State of M.P., 2007 (3) SCC (Cri) 701 that if anybody committed torture on person and subsequently that person commits suicide, that itself will not tantamount to abetment or instigation to commit suicide. Thus, even if the facts contained in the FIR be taken to be correct on its face value, no ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are made out.

5) In such situation, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; State of U.P. vs. R.K. Srivastava, (1989) 4 SCC 59; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 4226; Roopan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 and scores of other rulings.

6) The application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is therefore allowed. The chargesheet dated 27.01.2008 (Annexure 8 to the accompanying affidavit) filed against the present applicants as well as the

proceedings of criminal case no. 1336 of 2008, case crime no. 332 of 2007, State vs. Gurvinder Singh and others under Section 306 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun are hereby quashed in relation to the present applicants.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dt. May 15, 2013. Negi