| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – When not – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 204 – Case of the appellant was that his father committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj where he was working, leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent No.2 – Deceased was earlier working in Mandi Samiti, Puwaya as Security Guard and the respondent No.2 was the then Secretary of the Mandi Samiti – Complaint stated that the salary of the deceased for few months was unpaid and when he requested for its release on 12.10.2004, respondent No.2 uttered instigative words abetting him to commit suicide – High Court quashed the summons issued to respondent No.2 to face the trial u/s.306, IPC – Correctness:Held: There was no explicit or implicit reference in the so- called suicide note dated 23.10.2004 about any occurrence on 12.10.2004 involving the deceased and the respondent No.2 as alleged by the complainant – There was no proximity between the alleged occurrence of utterance of the so-called instigative words on 12.10.2004 and the commission of suicide by the deceased inasmuch as it was committed only on 23.10.2004 – It is also undisputed that at the time of the commission of suicide, the deceased was not working in the office of Mandi Samiti, Puwaya where the respondent No.2 was working as Secretary and when the former committed the suicide he was attached to the office of the Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad and was working in Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj – High Court rightly held that the so-called suicide note did not reveal and reflect that the victim was disturbed on account of non-receipt of salary and for that reason, he was bent upon to commit suicide – Though it stated that the respondent No.2 was responsible for his suicide however, there was absolute absence of any material or even a case in the complaint and in the so-called suicide note that the respondent No.2 abetted the late deceased in a manner that will attract the provisions u/s.107, IPC – There is absolute absence of any allegation of continued course of conduct on the part of the respondent No.2 with a view to create circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide – In such circumstances, the mere statement in suicide note dated 23.10.2004, that respondent No.2, Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Puwaya will be responsible for his suicide would not be a ground at all to issue summons to the respondent No.2 to face the trial for the offence u/s.306, IPC – Issuance of summons is a serious matter and shall not be done mechanically – It shall be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry – Impugned judgment of High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, illegality or perversity, warranting any interference. [Paras 13, 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 204 – Summons issued by Magistrate, interference with in exercise of power u/s.482:Held: Sine qua non for exercise of the power u/s.204, to issue process is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding – Issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, shall not be done mechanically – It shall be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry – A petition filed u/s.482, for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable – Once it is held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the Magistrate applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. [Paras 10, 13 and 14]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.173(2), 204 – FIR was registered u/s.306, IPC based on the orders of the High Court – Closure report was filed u/s.173(2) – Magistrate did not accept the closure report – In the protest petition filed by the appellant, Magistrate made an inquiry u/s.202, CrPC, and issued summons to respondent No.2 – Plea on behalf of respondent No.2 that though the Magistrate has the power to issue summons despite the fact that the Final Report filed u/s.173 (2) is a closure report in the case on hand, it was issued against respondent No.2 without satisfying the ground for proceeding further in the manner required under law:Held: Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed u/s.173 (2) and is jurisdictionally competent to take cognizance and issue summons despite the receipt of closure report following the prescribed procedure – Further, while conducting an inquiry, the Magistrate could go into the merits of the evidence collected by the investigating agency to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. |
