There Must Be Positive Act By Accused To Aid Or Instigate Deceased To Commit Suicide: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR U/S 306 IPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that, to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be a positive act by the accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court was dealing with a batch of two petitions seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all subsequent proceedings.

A Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, “… to constitute abetment, there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide inasmuch as the instigation or illegal act of omission or commission at the hands of the accused must be the only factor which subsequently led the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of an accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. There must be a positive act on the part of an accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”

The Bench further observed that merely being named in a suicide would not by itself establish the culpability of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out.

Advocates B.S. Tewatia and Johan Kumar appeared for the petitioners while Asstt. A.G. Karan Garg and Advocate S.K. Bhar appeared for the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

An FIR was registered by the complainant (respondent) alleging that he and his brother were doing the work of building construction in the house of Sunil Chauhan (petitioner no.1) and that he refused to make payment to them, stating that the same would be made only when the construction work was completed. Rs. 4 lakhs were due to them for the work done and Sunil had introduced them to his friend Narendra Kumar Sharma who provided them construction work at a college for which half of the money received by them was taken by him in cash as commission. He had also borrowed Rs. 6,73,000/- from his brother and when the same was demanded back, he refused to give it and threatened to initiate legal proceedings against his brother.

The complainant’s payment also remained unpaid and Mubin Khan (petitioner no.2), who was also working in the college, owed some amount to his brother which he had denied to pay. Thus, Narendra, Sunil, and Mubin were accused of mentally harassing the brother and compelling him to commit suicide. The deceased brother went to Sunil’s house where construction work was going on earlier, and committed suicide by hanging. Resultantly, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. A suicide note was also found written in a diary stating that he was going to commit suicide on account of non-payment of dues by the three accused.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… while dealing with a petition for quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC, the test that the Court must apply is the reaction of a normal person of ordinary prudence when faced with incidents of harassment. If the Court feels that the level of harassment faced was such that even a person of ordinary prudence with normal behaviour and reactions would be forced to take the extreme step of committing suicide, then the Court would do well in not quashing proceedings.”

The Court added that, on the other hand, if the Court comes to the conclusion that an ordinary person with normal reactions to harassment would not commit suicide but the deceased did so on account of his hypersensitive nature or other contributing factors, then the Court must not hesitate in quashing the proceedings.

“… a perusal of the FIR and the suicide note does not disclose any specific incidents of acute harassment which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, there has been absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioners to aid or instigate the deceased for committing suicide. From the allegations and the from the record it has not been established that the petitioners intended to push the deceased to such a situation that he would ultimately commit suicide”, it noted.

The Court enunciated that, apparently a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature and the complainant party including the deceased could very well have availed their legal remedies in accordance with law to recover the amounts due to them.

“In the instant case, the allegations are only to the effect that the accused persons had refused to either return the borrowed money to the deceased or pay him for the construction work done. … Keeping in view the aforementioned principles in mind and on an examination of the FIR and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the uncontroverted allegations levelled in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same clearly do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the accused persons.

Cause Title- Sunil Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:113327)

Click here to read/download the Judgment