Oral Judgment:

1. Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 47/2017 dated 12.02.2017 registered with Police Station, Karanja, Dist. Washim, consequent Charge-sheet No. 14/2019 dated 17.02.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Regular Criminal Case No. 63/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

                   (i) On 11.02.2017, a report was lodged by the complainant/non-applicant no.2 that on 09.02.2017, his younger brother deceased Prashant Rajendra Mahurkar who was at the verge of attaining majority, came from college on his usual time i.e. at 5.00 pm. The complainant asked him not to remain outside until late night and concentrate on his studies. Therefore, in anger the deceased left his house between 6:30 and 7:00 pm but did not return back for quite a long time in the night. The complainant took search of the deceased, but the deceased could not be found. Therefore, apprehending kidnap of his brother (the deceased), the complainant lodged report with the police station on 12.02.2017, on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC against unknown person.

                   (ii) On the next day i.e. on 13.02.2017, during investigation, police found dead body of the deceased in a well. On 22.03.2017, the complainant filed a written complaint alleging that he has suspicion on the applicants for death of his younger brother/ deceased. It is further alleged in the complaint that the deceased was in a love relationship with applicant no.3, a minor girl. Applicant nos.1 and 2, the uncle and aunt of applicant no.3 respectively, were against the said relationship and therefore, in December-2016 applicant nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the complainant and reprimanded the deceased stating that he should stop bothering and stay away from applicant no.3 otherwise they will kill him. It is alleged that due to harassment and threatening by the applicants, the deceased was mentally disturbed and therefore, he committed suicide for which the applicants are responsible. After completion of investigation and on the basis of further complaint lodged by the complainant, the police filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the applicants are being prosecuted for the aforesaid offence.

4. Heard Mr. J.B. Thakre and Mr. Aatish Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. Nilesh Tikar, learned counsel holding for Ms. Diksha Mudgale, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2. Perused the charge-sheet.

5. Mr. Thakare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicants have not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There was no proximity between the alleged incident of suicide and the reprimand by applicant nos.1 and 2 to the deceased. It is contended that even though applicant nos.1 and 2 had reprimanded the deceased, it will not amount to abetment of the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, no case of abetment is made out against the applicants, much less against applicant no.3, a minor girl with whom the deceased was having a love affair. Therefore, he seeks to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2 submitted that the deceased, a minor, was in a love relationship with applicant no.3. Applicant nos.1 and 2 were against the said love relationship. They had been to the house of the deceased and threatened him to stay away from applicant no.3 or else they would kill him. Therefore, the deceased was under constant stress. According to them, on the day of committing suicide, the deceased had called applicant no.2 to allow him to talk with applicant no.3, but she did not allow him to talk with applicant no.3. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide. He contends that the case deserves trial and sought rejection of the application.

7. In order to appreciate the arguments of the respective counsel for the parties, it is necessary to reproduce Section 305 of the IPC which prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide of child as well as Section 107 of the IPC which prescribes offence of abetment.

                   305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.—

                   If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

                   107. Abetment of a thing.—

                   A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

                   (First)— Instigates any person to do that thing; or

                   (Secondly)— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

                   (Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

                   Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

                   Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

8. The Supreme Court has time and again in catena of judgments has dealt with the issue of abetment to commit suicide. Few of them are reproduced here for ready reference :

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (2004) 13 SCC 129 has observed in para 12 as under :

                   “12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.”

10. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police reported at (2019) 3 SCC 315 has observed in paras 7 and 8 as under :

                   “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

                   8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, MO 1 letter and the oral evidence of PW 1 to PW 5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.”

11. The Supreme Court in the Case of Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana, reported at (2019) 17 SCC 301 has observed as under :

                   “14.2. …….

                   34. The word “abetment” has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. …

                   *

                   36. The word “instigate” literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct.

                   37. The words “urge forward” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as “abetment”. ….

                   15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when:

                   (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or

                   (ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or

                   (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

                   These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.

12. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the victim to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

13. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of instigation to the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred above, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the person who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 107 of the IPC.

14. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased victim by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, that particular case may be of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased victim.

15. In the present case, the charge-sheet indicates that the deceased was on the verge of attaining majority. He was in a love relationship with applicant no.3 since one and half years. Applicant no.3 was also a minor at the relevant time. Applicant nos.1 and 2 are the uncle and aunt of applicant no.3. The deceased had sent a cake to applicant no.3 on her birthday which was not liked by applicant nos.1 and 2. Therefore, in the month of December-2016, they had been to the house of the deceased and reprimanded him not to keep any relation with applicant no.3 otherwise they will kill him, but the deceased did not listen.

16. The charge-sheet further indicates that on 09.02.2017 when the complainant asked the deceased to concentrate on his studies, he left the house and on 13.02.2017 his dead body was found in a well. The investigation revealed that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into a well.

17. So far as the incident of reprimandation by applicant nos.1 and 2 to the deceased is concerned, it happened in the month of December, 2016 i.e. almost one and half months prior to the alleged incident of committing suicide by the deceased. Thus, there is no proximity between the incident of reprimandation by applicant nos.1 and 2 to the deceased and the alleged incident of committing suicide. Even otherwise, the act of reprimanding the deceased not to meet applicant no.3 and threatening on that count would not amount to abetment to the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The entire charge-sheet does not reveal any act on the part of the applicants whereby it can be said that the deceased was abetted by the applicants to commit suicide. Moreover, there is nothing else on record to suggest that the applicants harassed the deceased continuously and the deceased was left with no alternative but to take such a drastic step of committing suicide. It is to be noted here that it is not the case that any suicide note has been left by the deceased. In these peculiar facts of the case, I do not find support to the arguments of the learned APP assisted by the learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2 that, the act of applicant nos.1 and 2 reprimanding the deceased one and half months prior to the act of suicide would amount to abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the facts of the present case do not indicate that the act of the applicants can be termed as abetment, even if the material available in the charge-sheet is accepted as its face value. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 305 of the IPC are not attracted against the applicants.

19. It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which reads thus:

                   “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

                   (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

                   (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

                   (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

                   (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

                   (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

                   (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party

                   (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

20. In view of the above, the present case squarely falls under the decision of Bhajan Lal (supra).

21. Considering the facts mentioned above, a case is made out for exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order is passed :

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) First Information Report No. 47/2017 dated 12.02.2017 registered with Police Station, Karanja, Dist. Washim, consequent Charge-sheet No. 14/2019 dated 17.02.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Regular Criminal Case No. 63/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja, are hereby quashed and set aside, qua the applicants.

(iii) The Criminal Application stands disposed of.