MADAN MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

                 [2010] 10 S.C.R. 351


                  MADAN MOHAN SINGH                              A
                              v.
              STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1291 of 2008)
                     AUGUST 17, 2010
                                                                 B
     [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306 and 294(b) - Driver
employed in a project, found dead - Purported suicide note
in which deceased stated that he was being harassed and C
rebuked by his officer - FIR - Prosecution of officer for
offences punishable u/ss.306 and 294(b) - Challenge to -
Held: On facts, the origin itself of the suicide note was
suspicious - Even otherwise, no nexus or proximity found
between the so-called suicide and any of the alleged acts on D
the part of the officer - The a/legations made could not
reasonably be viewed as suggesting that the officer had
intended or engineered the suicide of the deceased by his
acts and words - The FIR itself did not have any material nor
could it be viewed as having material for offence under ss. 306 E
and 294(b) - FIR and further proceedings accordingly
quashed.

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306 - Prosecution under -
Requirement of specific abetment as contemplated by s.107
on the part of the accused, with an intention to bring out the   F
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment
- Held: The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or
to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for the
offence u/s. 306.
                                                                 G
    The complainant's husband, who was employed in
a Microwave project as a driver, was found dead in a
vehicle. Twenty four days thereafter the FIR was lodged,
wherein reference was made to a purported suicide note
                          351                                    H
    352      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   written by the deceased. The complainant alleged that the
    deceased's superior (appellant) used to tell his private
    errands to the deceased, which he did not do, and
    consequently the appellant had bias against the
    deceased, and insulted him in front of the staff several
B   times and because of this, the deceased got depressed
    and committed suicide.

        Prosecution was initiated against the appellant for
    offences punishable under Sections 306 and 294(b), IPC.
    He filed petition under Section 482 CrPC which was
C   dismissed by the High Court.

         The appellant contended before the Supreme Court
    that even if the suicide note is accepted as it is, alongwith
    the FIR, no ingredients of Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC
D   could be spelt out from the same.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD:1.1. The so-called suicide note was signed on
    4.2.2008, wherein the complainant's husband (the
E   deceased) had complained about the stale incidents
    dated 15.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. A number of days
    thereafter, he was found dead 23.2.2008. It is claimed by
    the complainant that she got a call from the Gujarat High
    Court informing her that a suicide note was found and
F   that she should search for such note in her house,
    subsequent to which she claimed to have found the
    suicide note, bearing the signature of her husband (the
    deceased), thus bringing the origin of the alleged suicide
    note under the cloud of suspicion. [Para 7] [358-F-H]
G
         1.2. As regards the suicide note, which is a document
    of about 15 pages, all that can be said is that it is an
    anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss
    (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the
H   FIR cannot be depicted as expressing anything
 MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 353
                  ANR.
  intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased       A
  might commit suicide. There is nothing in the FIR or in
  the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as
  abetment to commit suicide. It is clear from a microscopic
  examination of the suicide note that it is a rhetoric
  document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It         B
  also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the
  deceased which he himself describes as depression.
  From the so-called suicide note, it cannot be inferred that
  the appellant ever intended that the driver under him, i.e.
  the complainant's husband, should commit suicide or            c
  should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even
  if it is accepted that the appellant changed the duty of the
  driver or that the appellant asked him not to take the keys
  of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office
  itself, it does not mean that the appellant intended or        D
  knew that the driver should commit suicide because of
  this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306,
  IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107,
  IPC on the part of the accused, with an intention to bring
  out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that
  abetment, is required. The intention of the accused to aid     E
  or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
· is a must for the offence under Section 306, IPC. [Paras
  8, 10] [360-F-G; 359-B-H]

      1.3. There is no nexus between the so-called suicide       F
 (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on
 record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the
 appellant. There is no proximity either. In prosecution
 under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required.
 The courts have to be extremely careful as the main             G
 person is not available for cross-examination 'by the
 appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, the.re is specific
 allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary
 or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the
                                                                 H
    354      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   appellant/accused to face the trial. The appellant, who is
    serving in a responsible post, would certainly suffer great
    prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd
    allegations of irrelevant nature. [Para 9] [360-8-E]

          Netai Dutta v. State of WB. 2005 (2) SCC 659 - relied
B
    on.

         2. It is trite law now that where there is some material
    alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing
    proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482
c   Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, insofar as Section
    294(b) IPC is concerned, there was not a single word in
    the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as
    Section 306 IPC is concerned, merely because a person
    had a grudge against his superior officer and committed
D   suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling
    that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper
    allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC.
    It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have
    to be objectively seen whether the allegations made
E   could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations
    against the appellant/accused to the effect that he had
    intended or engineered the suicide of the concerned
    person by his acts, words etc. When the present FIR is
    put on this test, it falls short. The baseless and irrelevant
    allegations could not be used as a basis for prosecution
F
    for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC. Similarly,
    after considering Section 294 (b) IPC also, nothing has
    been found. Under such circumstances, where the FIR
    itself do.es not have any material or is not capable of
    being viewed as having material for offence under
G   Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, it would be only proper to
    quash the FIR and the further proceedings. The High
    Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. The petition
    filed by the appellant under s.482 CrPC is allowed. [Paras
    11, 12] [360-H; 361-A-G]
H
MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 355
                 ANR.
    State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Suppl.     A
1 sec 335- - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:
  2005 (2) sec 659            relied on            Para 9
                                                                 B
  1992 Suppl.1 SCC 335        relied on            Para 12

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1291 of 2008.

                            WITH                                 c
CRL. MP No. 12749 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2008 of the riigh
Court of Gujarat in Crl. Misc. App. No. 5086 of 2008.
                                                                 D
     K.T.S. Tulsi, Priyanka Agarwal, Niraj Gupta, Hemantika
Wahi,, Nachiketa Joshi (for Minakshi Vij) for the appearing
parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                 E
     V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. The accused who faces
prosecution for offences under Section 306 and 294(b) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) comes up before us being aggrieved
by the High Court judgment by which his petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. In that petition the accused/         F
appellant had challenged the First Information Report (FIR)
registered as C.R. No. 166 of 2008 at Naranpura Police
Station.

      2. The said FIR is a long document which has been filed
by one Harshida Ben, widow of Deepakbhai Krishnalal Joshi. G
It is apparent from the said report that she was married to
Deepakbhai Krishnalal Joshi serving in Ahmedabad Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. as a driver in the Microwave Project
Department. He had undergone a heart bypass surgery in the
                                                              H
    356       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A    year 2002 and he was asked by the doctor to avoid lifting heavy
     weights. She further stated that the appellant, Madan Mohan
     Singh was working as a D.E.T. and her husband who was
     driving a Tata Sumo car was working under Madan Mohan
     Singh (accused herein). She then complained that Madan
B    Mohan Singh used to tell his private errands to her husband
    and was harassing him. Though Madan Mohan Singh was
    transferred, yet he kept on continuously using her husband. In
    the year 2007, Madam Mohan Singh came back on transfer in
    the Microwave Project as D.E.T. It is alleged that on the day
c   when Madan Mohan Singh joined, he told her husband to keep
    the keys of the vehicle on the table. However, according to her,
    her husband did not listen to that and took back the key on
    account of which Madan Mohan Singh had become angry and
    had threatened her husband of suspending him. He also
    rebuked her husband that if he did not listen to him, he would
0
    create difficulties for her husband. Madan Mohan Singh said
    to her husband as how he is still alive inspite of the insults. It is
    then contended that on 21.2.2008, her husband left at 1O'O
    Clock as per rules with tiffin but did not return back in the
    evening and, therefore, his search was taken by his son Jatin
E   from his colleagues like Raji Saheb and his absence was
    reported to the police on 22.2.2008 and 23.2.2008. Ultimately,
    she came to know that her husband's body was lying in the
    dead condition in the vehicle No. GJ 1 G 3472 at Kiran Park
    opposite Gayatri Hospital, New Vadaj. She also suggested
F   further that a telephone call had come from Gujarat High Court
    informing her that there was a Xerox copy of the suicide note.
    Lastly, it is stated that during the period between 2003 to
    21.2.2008 the Head of the department D.E.T. Project was
    entrusting his hQuse work to her husband but her husband had
G   not done the work entrusted to him and, therefore, he had bias
    against her husband and insulted him in front of the staff several
    times and because of this her husband got depressed and
    committed suicide.

          3. This First Information Report was filed and registered
H
MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 357
         ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
on 17 .3.2008 i.e. after the 24 days of the death of her husband.    A
It is this report which is challenged suggesting that even if the
whole report is accepted as it is, it did not disclose any offence
much less the offences under Sections 306 and 294, IPC.
Since, the Gujarat High Court did not agree and dismissed the
petition; the appellant is before us now.                            B

      4. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate took us
through the FIR in which there is reference to a suicide note
allegedly written by the deceased, a Xerox copy of which was
produced by the complainant. The copy of that suicide note was       C
filed before us. It seems to be a letter dated 4.2.2008 written
to the Chief General Manager, Telecom Project. It is a huge
complaint in which the incident dated 15.10.2007 was
mentioned when allegedly the appellant asked the driver to keep
the keys of the vehicle on the table and not to take away them.
There is also a complaint against the working style of the Madan     D
Mohan Singh by the driver. There is one significant sentence I
was put under mental tension by M. M. Singh. Without any
concrete proof and evidence I was put under insulting position
due to which I began to feel resentment and insult and I came
under depression.                                                    E

     5. The further complaint in that so-called suicide note
appears to be that the driver was not given a fixed vehicle
though all the drivers were given fixed vehicles to drive. There
is also a complaint against one Raghunathan suggesting that          F
he misled the DGM and had given him a very bad vehicle to
drive. By way of example, it was pointed out that the keys of
the vehicle were taken in the absence of lncharge, M.K.
Sovangya without giving any reasons verbally. Then he was not
given any charge of the vehicle and running log book. Thirdly,       G
he was sent the transfer order by post. The attendance of the
office staff was not maintained and he was·transferred and the
vehicle was given to a regular labour. There is also a complaint
about the salary of 15 days which was deducted by Madan
Mohan Singh. A fair inquiry was sought for by the said driver. It    H
    358      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   was suggested that his retirement date was 25.12.2012 and
    salary should be recovered from Madan Mohan Singh as he had
    harassed him without giving any concrete reason. It is then
    suggested in the followings words:

B         I am going to commit suicide due to his functioning style.
          Alone M.M. Singh, D.E.T. Microwave Project is
          responsible for my death. I pray humbly to the officers of
          the department that you should not cooperate as human
          being to defend M.M. Singh. M.M. Singh has acted in
          breach of discipline disregarding the norms of discipline. I
c         humbly request the Enquiry Officer that my wife and son
          may not be harassed. My life has been ruined by M.M.
          Singh."

        6. This huge note is addressed to inquiry officer, Chief
D General Manager and also to the Chief Justice. The biggest
  complaint against the accused is that he had changed the duty
  of this driver from one car to another though no other driver was
  ever transferred. Again and again, the deceased has insisted
  that the only person responsible for his suicide was Madan
E Mohan Singh.

       7. We have gone through the suicide note though it is not
  yet on record. Shri Tulsi pointed out that even if this suicide note
  is accepted as it is, along with the FIR, no ingredients of
  Sections 306 and 294 (b), IPC could be spelt out from the same.
F We have gone through the whole FIR as well as the so-called
  suicide note which seems to have been signed on 4.2.2008
  wherein he had complained about the stale incidents dated
  15.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. It seems that it is 17 days after that,
  that he was found dead 23.2.2008. It is claimed by his wife
G Harshida Ben that she got a call from the Gujarat High Court
  informing her that a suicide note was found and that she should
  search for such note in her house subsequent to which she
  claimed to have found the suicide note bearing the signature
  of the deceased, thus bringing the origin of alleged suicide note
H under the cloud of suspicion.
MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 359
         ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
     8. It is on this that Shri Tulsi contended that all this is      A
absolutely absurd. If a person writes a suicide note on 4.2.2008,
he had no business to send the suicide note to High Court and
keep a copy thereof in the house. Learned Senior Counsel said
that even if all this is accepted as it is, there is nothing to
suggest that the appellant has committed any offence or that          B
any offence could be spelt out from the said suicide note or the
FIR much less offence under Sections 306 and 294, IPC. We
are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note
or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence
much less under Section 306, IPC. We could not find anything          c
in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be
suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there
must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with
some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused
                                                                      D
had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about
the suicide. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic
examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is
that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a
departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental
                                                                      E
imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself
describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot
be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under
him should commit suicide or should end his life and did
anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused
changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him          F
not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car
in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended
or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.
In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific
abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of           G
the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the
concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence
under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there        H
    360      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   is no question of there being any material for offence under
    Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide
    note.

       9. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the
  appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and,
8
  therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between
  the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which .also there is no
  material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of
  the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution
C under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The
  Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not
  available for cross-examination by the appellanUaccused.
  Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of
  definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be
  hazardous to ask the appellanUaccused to face the trial. A
D criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person
  like the appellant in present case who is serving in a
  responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he
  to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature.
  In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs.
E State of WB. [2005 (2) SCC 659], this Court had quashed the
  proceedings initiated against the accused.

       10. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of
  about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish
F expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had
  wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us
  at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything
  intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might
  commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on
G such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to
  work.

         11. It was tried to be contended by the learned cou.nsel
  appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we
  should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note.
H It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in
MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 361
         ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not        A
be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for this reason that
we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to
a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and
294(b) IPC. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we
could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called     B
 suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at
the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person
 had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide
on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was
wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the    c
charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper
allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the
allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper
allegations against the appellant/accused to the effect that he
had intended or engineered the suicide of the concerned person
                                                                     0
by his acts, words etc. When we put the present FIR on this test,
it falls short. We have already explained that the baseless and
irrelevant allegations could not be used as a basis for
prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC.
 Similarly, we have already considered Section 294 (b) IPC also.     E
We have not been able to find anything. Under such
 circumstances, where the FIR itself does not have any material
 or is not capable of being viewed as having material for offence
 under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, as per the law laid down
 by this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.
 (1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335], it would be only proper to quash the       F
 FIR and the further proceedings.

     12. For all these reasons, we are of the clear opinion that
the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. Allowing
this appeal, we set aside the order of the High Court and            G
allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the
appellant/accused, the questioned proceedings are quashed.

B.B.B                                           Appeal allowed.