MUNSHIRAMversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

                         [2018] 3 S.C.R. 847                             847


                           MUNSHIRAM                                     A
                                  v.
            STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.
               (Criminal Appeal Nos. 515-516 of 2018)
                          APRIL 09, 2018                                 B
        [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of –
Quashing of FIR alleging abetment of suicide – FIR lodged against
respondents by the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter-
                                                                         C
in-law and her family harassed his son and the entire family which
ultimately led him committing suicide – As per the FSL report, the
handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present in the
suicide note had similarities – High Court quashed the FIR on the
ground that the alleged offence of abetment of suicide was not made
out – On appeal, held: s.482 has to be utilized cautiously while         D
quashing the FIR – In the instant case, High Court prematurely
quashed the FIR – The court abridged the investigation which
needed to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the FIR
concerning the existence or non-existence of any prior mental
condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide – Since,
                                                                         E
the enquiry was pending and there were aspects which required
investigation, impugned order is set aside – Investigating Authorities
directed to complete investigation – Penal Code 1860 – s.306 –
Investigation.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                                         F
      HELD: 1. The High Court has prematurely quashed the
FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the Police.
This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes
to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would
only amount to abuse of the process. The FSL report categorically
states that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting          G
as present in the suicide note has similarities. The enquiry was
pending and there are aspects which may require investigation,
the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itself
without allowing the investigation to proceed. The reasons
                                                                         H
                                 847
848            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factual
      assertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of the
      deceased and reasons for committing suicide cannot be accepted
      because acceptance of the said would not be in consonance with
      the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of CrPC. The
      investigative authorities are directed to complete the investigation
B
      with promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion. [Paras
      11, 12, 13 and 15][851-E-G; 853-A-B, D]
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 515-516 of 2018.
C           From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2015 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S. B. Criminal
      Misc. Petitions Nos. 2372 of 2014 and 3508 of 2014.
             Manish K. Bishnoi, Devansh Srivastava, Ms. Ila Haldia, Advs.
      for the Appellant.
D           R. S. Suri, Sr. Adv., Pashupati Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,
      Milind Kumar, Varun Khanna (For Avinash Kumar), Advs. for the
      Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
             2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order,
      dt. 15.04.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
      Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2372
      of 2014 and 3508 of 2014, wherein the High Court quashed the FIR No.
      318 of 2013 filed under Section 306 of IPC.
F
             3. Before we analyse the case at hand, it would be necessary to
      observe the facts of this case which gave rise to the aforesaid FIR. The
      deceased son of the Appellant herein (Brijesh Singh) got married to
      Respondent no. 2 - wife (Khushboo) on 10.2.2008. From the aforesaid
      wedlock, the couple were blessed with a male child on 29.10.2009. It is
G     to be noted that the wife on previous occasions had filed multiple
      complaints against her husband which were ultimately compromised.
      Moreover, the husband had also filed a complaint dt. 13.7.2010 alleging
      atrocities committed by her and her family on the deceased and his
      family. On 7.03.2013, Respondent- wife instituted another proceeding
H
             MUNSHIRAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                  849
                    [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

against the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was under a constant    A
fear of arrest and harassment because of false implication in criminal
case. Thereafter a compromise is said to have been entered into between
the deceased and the respondent - wife, wherein he had promised not to
repeat any of the aforesaid occurrences. Thereafter, Respondent again
filed an FIR No. 152 of 2013 against the deceased and the Petitioner
                                                                              B
under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 351 of IPC. It may not be out of
context to mention here that the Respondent - wife also filed a domestic
violence case against the deceased son of the appellant. It is alleged that
on 8.7.2013, due to continuous humiliation and suffering inflicted upon
by the wife and the accused persons, the Appellant’s son (Brijesh Singh)
committed suicide. Before committing the suicide, the deceased is said        C
to have written two suicide notes which needs to be recorded herein.
                            Suicide Note 1
      My wife Khushboo and his parents and family members since
      after marriage are threatening me and my family saying that we
      are dacoits and we will kill you and also have filed false cases of     D
      dowry and domestic violence. My wife Khushboo has got an illicit
      relation with Rajkumar the 2nd son of SI Gajadhar living in her
      neighbourhood and Rajesh Aggarwal and son of Fawji and others
      also keep on facilitating / helping them.
      My wife, my in-laws and these boys are intending to grab the            E
      factory and house of my parents, this is why they keep on torturing
      us and do not allow me and my parents to meet my son. Me and
      my parents are in deep agony since after my marriage. The total
      investment in the factory is done by my father and I have not
      contributed any penny. I love my wife and my child very much            F
      but she do not have any affection either for me and my parents
      so, her parents keep on threatening us and keep on filing false
      complaint and are trying to grab the house and factory by
      implicating my parents and my sister in false cases (sic)
                                                   (redaction supplied)       G
                            Suicide Note 2
      My wife Khushboo under the influence of Rajkumar the 2nd son
      of SI Gajodhar living in her neighbourhood, Rajesh Aggarwal, her
      parents and other in-laws has got filed a false case against me,
      my parents and my sisters. Due to which I am in deep mental             H
850            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           stress. I am committing suicide. All these are conspiring to grab
            the house and factory of my parents. My parents are old and they
            may kindly be helped. The complete investment in the factory is
            done by my father after his retirement. I do not have any
            contribution in it. My wife wants to flee away to Delhi after
            grabbing all these and every day she keeps abusing us and also
B
            threatens to get us killed. She does not let us meet my son. I have
            always loved my wife. She has always betrayed me. She may be
            removed from the house of my parents. Safety of my parents be
            ensured (sic)
                                                         (redaction supplied)
C
             4. In this context an FIR was lodged by the appellant under Section
      306 of IPC against the Respondent-wife and her family members alleging
      that they harassed his son which ultimately lead to him committing suicide.
           5. On 11.03.2014, the Police reported to the trial court, wherein it
D     was stated that the suicide notes were found to be matching the
      handwriting of the deceased as reported by forensic science laboratory.
            6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR being registered against the
      accused Respondents, they filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC
      before the High Court for quashing of the FIR No. 318 of 2013 for the
E     offences of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
             7. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dt.
      15.04.2015, quashed the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the alleged
      offence of abetment of suicide was not made out in this case. It would
      be relevant to note the reasoning of the High Court before we further
F     proceed with the discussion of this case:
            a. That the Court was of the opinion that the suicide notes makes
                reference to various litigation and criminal complaints which
                were a result of actions of the deceased and were not filed
                with a view to harass him.
G           b. The allegation concerning the adultery by the respondent - wife
                has not been evidenced by any material on record.
            c. The bad behaviour and alcoholism of the deceased has been
               categorically admitted in the compromise affidavit.
            d. That the allegations contained in the suicide note did not reveal
H               the ingredients of abetment or instigation of suicide.
            MUNSHIRAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                  851
                   [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

      e. That there is nothing to show the intention of the accused to       A
         instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
      f.That the suicide notes admit depression on the part of the
         deceased so as to commit suicide.
       8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the father of the deceased
(appellant herein) approached this Court through this Special Leave          B
Petition.
       9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently contended that the quashing of the FIR at the threshold
level without allowing the police to investigate the matter cannot be
sustained as it was pre-mature. He has further relied on the status report   C
as well as the FSL report to portray that there was a prima facie case
for continuing the investigation.
       10. Per contra, the counsel on behalf of the respondents has
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the suicide was
the deceased’s own doing and the respondents in both cases were beyond       D
any blame as the litigation foisted upon the deceased were solely
attributable to his own actions and behaviour.
       11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
perusing the material available on record we are of the opinion that the
High Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without proper investigation      E
being conducted by the Police. Further, it is no more res integra that
Section 482 of CrPC has to be utilized cautiously while quashing the
FIR. This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes
to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would only
amount to abuse of the process. In this case at hand, the court abridged     F
the investigation which needed to ascertain certain factual assertions
made in the FIR concerning the existence or non-existence of any prior
mental condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide.
       12. We are apprised of the FSL report which categorically states
that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present in
                                                                             G
the suicide note has similarities. Further, the status report filed before
the High Court notes as under:
      During investigation, after receiving information of the deceased
      Brijesh Singh from the hospital and after recording death FIR 15/
                                                                             H
852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     13 under section 174 CrPC, investigation was started. Handwriting
      was recovered from the place of incident during inspection, which
      was identified by the complainant as the handwriting of his son
      and same was taken into custody. Statements under section 161
      CrPC of complainant Munshi Ram, witnesses Sh. Ajay Kumar,
      Hakam Singh, Smt. Ombati, Smt. Rekha, Smt. Meena, Smt.
B
      Pushpa, and Sh. Sher Singh were recorded. Thereafter, Munshi
      Ram got registered FIR No. 318/2013. The post-mortem and
      panchayatnama of the deceased was done and during this, written
      unsigned note was recovered from the half pant of the deceased
      and the same was also taken into possession. The post-mortem
C     of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The clothes worn
      by the deceased were taken into custody and the dead body was
      handed over to the family members for last rites. On 3.8.2013,
      the file was forwarded to Ld. ACC, Sadar for further investigation
      who sent the suicide note to FSL for examination. Call details of
      the suspect were obtained and on 17.2.2014, the main file was
D
      entrusted to Ld. AACP, Vaishali Nagar. FSL Report with regard
      to suicide note was obtained by him. On 18.2.2014, case file was
      sent to Deputy Commissioner for further investigation who took
      statements of Smt. Shrawni Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Kalawati,
      Smt. Radha Agarwal, Smt. Manju Chowdhary, Shri Deepakshi
E     @ Charu, Shri Harish Agarwal under section 161 CrPC. Based
      on the investigation carried out as per the order no 8225-27 of
      DCP in case no 318/13 by the Deputy Commissioner and based
      on the evidence available on record, it is established that Accused
      persons (1) Khushboo (2) Dharampal (3) Smt. Sushila (4) Hawa
      Singh have committed offence under section 306 IPC. Accused
F
      Smt. Khushboo W/o Brijesh Singh D/o Dharampal Singh caste
      Bawaria, Age 25 years, Sushila W/o Shri Dharampal Singh caste
      Bawaria, Age 43 years and Dharampal Sing S/o late Shri Ram
      Singh caste Bawaria, Age 45 years were arrested in this case.
      Remaining enquiry.
G
      Accused Hawa Singh could not be arrested since he was
      absconding and since 8.8.2014, the Hon’ble High Court
      has stayed the investigation.
      The Status Report of facts is being sent to you.
H                                                (emphasis supplied)
                MUNSHIRAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                853
                       [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

       13. In light of the fact that the enquiry was pending and there are     A
aspects which may require investigation, we are of the considered opinion
that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itself
without allowing the investigation to proceed. We cannot agree with the
reasons provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factual
assertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of the deceased
                                                                               B
and reasons for committing suicide because acceptance of the said would
not be in consonance with the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of
CrPC as laid down by various judgments of this Court.
       14. It would be relevant to note that any observation made herein
should not be taken as observations on merits and we direct the
investigative authority as well as the court to consider the matter on its     C
own merits uninfluenced by any observation herein.
       15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the
investigative authorities to complete the investigation with promptness
and to take it to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, these appeals are
allowed.                                                                       D


Devika Gujral                                               Appeals allowed.


                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H