VIKAS CHANDRAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223 : 2024 INSC 261

                            Vikas Chandra
                                    v.
                     State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024)
                              22 February 2024
             [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Respondent No.2 was summoned to face the trial for the offence
       under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether
       justified in quashing the summons.

                                  Headnotes
       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
* Author
1224                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    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]
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1225

             Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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. [Paras 8-10]

                              Case Law Cited
           Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. [2003]
           Suppl. 1 SCR 307 : (2003) 6 SCC 195; Bhagwant
           Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. [1985] 3 SCR
           942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537; M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v.
           Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [1997] Suppl. 5 SCR
           12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749; D.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors. v.
           State of West Bengal & Anr. [1972] 3 SCR 973 : (1972)
           3 SCC 414; Mehmood Ul Rehman & Ors. v. Khazir
           Mohammad Tunda and Ors. [2015] 4 SCR 841 : (2015)
           12 SCC 420; Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of
           Delhi) & Anr. [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012) 5 SCC 424;
           Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I. [2015] 1 SCR 377 : (2015) 4
           SCC 609; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla
           & Anr. [2005] Suppl. 3 SCR 371 : (2005) 8 SCC 89;
           Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
           & Ors. [1976] Suppl. SCR 123 : (1976) 3 SCC 736;
           M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2024] 2 SCR
           1054 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 238; M. Mohan v. State
           represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
           [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626; Madan Mohan
           Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2010] 10 SCR 351 :
1226                                                       [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


          (2010) 8 SCC 628; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
          (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 13 SCR 230 : (2009) 16
          SCC 605; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001]
          Suppl. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Netai Dutta v.
          State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659 – relied on.

                               List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                            List of Keywords
     Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 482 of Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973; Suicide; Abetment of suicide; Suicide note;
     Summoning order; Quashing; Instigative words; Commission of
     suicide; Leaving deceased with no other option except to commit
     suicide; Mere statement in suicide note; Closure report; Protest
     petition; Issuance of summons; Application of mind by Magistrate;
     Legality of a summons issued by Magistrate; Sufficient ground for
     proceeding further.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1101
     of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in AN No. 5961 of 2013
                        Appearances for Parties
     Raj Kamal, Maheen Pradhan, Aseem Atwal, Kartavya Batra, Anurag
     Chandra, Ms. Nupur Kaushik, Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Sidana,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Ajay Singh, R Karthik, Praveen Chaturvedi,
     Shashidhar Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents.
               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment
     C. T. Ravikumar, J.
     Leave granted.
1.   The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment and order
     dated 10.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1227

             Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     in Application under Section 482 No.5961 of 2013. As per the
     impugned order, in invocation of the power under Section 482 of the
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.PC”), the High
     Court quashed the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Court of
     Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No.1478
     of 2012, summoning the respondent No. 2 herein in the appeal to
     face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
     Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).
2.   Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel
     appearing for the respondent No.1–State of Uttar Pradesh and the
     learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3.   It is a matter where, initially, the complainant approached the Court
     of jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint and on being refused to
     forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.PC,
     the matter was taken up in revision and upon its dismissal before the
     High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9134/2005.
     Consequently, based on the orders of the High Court thereon, F.I.R.
     No.107/2005 was registered at Alhaganj Police Station under Section
     306, IPC. The final report filed under Section 173(2), Cr.PC, would
     reveal that after the investigation, virtually, a closure report was filed
     by the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate did not accept the
     closure report. In the protest petition filed by the appellant herein the
     learned Magistrate made an inquiry as contemplated under Section
     202, Cr.PC, and based on all the materials collected issued summons
     to respondent No.2 herein as per order dated 05.04.2012 and it is the
     challenge against the same that culminated in the impugned order.
4.   Compendiously stated, the case of the appellant is that respondent
     No.2 committed abetment of suicide inasmuch as his father Shri
     Brijesh Chandra, committed suicide, by consuming poison, in the
     office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working, after leaving
     a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent
     No.2. The appellant’s father was earlier working in Mandi Samiti,
     Puwaya as Security Guard and the respondent No.2 was the then
     Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. The complaint is to the effect that
     the salary of the deceased from March, 2004 to August, 2004 and
     September, 2004 onwards was not paid by Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad
     and on 12.10.2004, when he requested for its release, respondent
     No.2 told: -
1228                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “I will see that how will you get your salary and who will
            help you in getting your salary, I will bring out your military-
            man-ship and either you die or your children, but I do not
            care, get out of here, why you do not take poison”.
5.   According to the appellant, the deceased was a retired military man
     and subsequent to the events on 12.10.2004 he returned home in
     moony mood and on 23.10.2004 at around 10.00 a.m. went to attend
     duty at Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj from Warikhas and committed suicide
     thereafter leaving a suicide note noting down such incident as well.
6.   We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions
     and also have gone through the detailed discussion made by the
     High Court to come to the conclusion to invoke the power under
     Section 482, Cr.PC, to quash the order dated 05.04.2012. The
     bifold contentions of the appellant raised, based on law, against the
     impugned judgment are as under :-
     (i)    The High Court has committed grave error in law in quashing
            the summons issued against respondent No.2;
     (ii)   The High Court has stepped beyond the settled guidelines
            and parameters ordained by this Court in catena of decisions
            with respect to exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC,
            and in view of such guidelines and parameters, the High Court
            was not justified in interfering with the summons issued by the
            Trial Court.
7.   Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
     would submit that though the Magistrate is having the power to
     issue summons despite the fact that the Final Report filed under
     Section 173 (2), Cr.PC, is a closure report in the case on hand, it
     was issued against the respondent No.2 without satisfying on the
     ground for proceeding further in the manner required under law. At
     any rate, the summoning order did not reflect application of mind to
     form the opinion regarding sufficient basis for proceeding against
     him. The learned counsel for the State, the first respondent, would
     submit that there occurred no legal error in the matter of exercise
     of power by the High Court and hence, the order of the High Court
     did not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference.
8.   There cannot be any doubt with respect to the power of the Magistrate
     to issue summons even after filing of a negative report by the police.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1229

                 Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


      In other words, the Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final
      Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC. The power not to accept
      the Final Report and to issue summons to the accused is recognized
      by this Court in the decision in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja
      & Anr.1. In this context, it is to be noted that this Court in the decision
      in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.2 held that
      when a Final Report under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC, is filed before the
      Magistrate, which happens to be a negative report, usually called a
      “closure report”, he gets the following four choices to be adopted,
      taking into account the position obtained in the case concerned:
      (1)    to accept the report and drop the Court proceedings (2) to direct
             further investigation to be made by the police (3) to investigate
             himself or refer for the investigation to be made by another
             Magistrate under Section 159, Cr.PC, (4) to take cognizance of
             the offence under Section 200, Cr.PC, as a private complaint
             when the materials are sufficient in his opinion and if the
             complainant is prepared for that course.
9.    Now, there can be no two views that “existence of power” and
      “exercise of power” are different and distinct. Having found that
      a Magistrate is jurisdictionally competent to take cognizance and
      issue summons despite the receipt of closure report following the
      prescribed procedure, we will have to consider the sustainability of
      the exercise of such power, in view of the legal and factual position
      obtained, in this case. In the decision in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. &
      Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.3, this Court laid down
      the golden standard for summoning an accused after holding that
      summoning an accused is a serious matter involving interference
      with life and liberty of a person. Paragraph 28 therein is noteworthy
      and it reads thus: -
             “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
             serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
             a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to
             bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the
             complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The


1    [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 307 : (2003) 6 SCC 195
2    [1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537
3    [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749
1230                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


            order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect
            that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and
            the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature
            of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both
            oral and documentary in support thereof and would that
            be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing
            charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate
            is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
            evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has
            to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and
            may even himself put questions to the complainant and his
            witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the
            allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence
            is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
10. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to the decision
    of this Court in D.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal
    & Anr.4, wherein this Court observed that 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.
     It is relevant to note, in this context, that the sine qua non for
     exercise of the power under Section 204, Cr.PC, to issue process
     is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient
     ground for proceeding.
11. Paragraph 7 in D.N. Bhattacharjee’s case (supra), in so far as it is
    relevant, reads thus: -
            “7…… It is true that the Magistrate is not debarred, at this
            stage, from going into the merits of the evidence produced
            by the complainant. But, the object of such consideration
            of the merits of the case, at this stage, could only be
            to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for
            proceeding further or not”.
12. In Mehmood Ul Rehman & Ors. v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and
    Ors.5 this Court held thus: -


4   [1972] 3 SCR 973 : (1972) 3 SCC 414
5   [2015] 4 SCR 841 : (2015) 12 SCC 420
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                             1231

                Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


            “22…..The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would
            mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute
            an offence, and when considered along with the statements
            recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable
            before the court……….In other words, the Magistrate is not
            to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and
            every complaint filed before him and issue process as a
            matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the
            order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that
            the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and
            when considered along with the statements recorded and
            the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section
            202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the
            criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the
            accused under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for
            appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by
            disclosure of mind on the satisfaction………..To be called
            to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious
            matter affecting one’s dignity, self respect and image in
            society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be
            made a weapon of harassment.”
13. A close scrutiny of the position of law revealed from the aforesaid
    decisions, which are constantly and consistently being followed by
    this Court, would reveal that issuance of summons is a serious matter
    and, therefore, shall not be done mechanically and 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.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next question to be considered
    is whether a summons issued by a Magistrate can be interfered with
    in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr.PC. In the decisions
    in Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.6 and M/s
    Pepsi Foods Ltd.’s case (supra) this Court held that a petition filed
    under Section 482, Cr.PC, for quashing an order summoning the
    accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is
    held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is


6   [2012] 2 SCR 696 : (2012) 5 SCC 424
1232                                                             [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


     the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while
     exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued
     by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the
     question as to whether the learned Magistrate had 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. In this context, we think it appropriate to state
     that one should understand that ‘taking cognizance’, empowered
     under Section 190, Cr.PC, and ‘issuing process’, empowered under
     Section 204, Cr.PC, are different and distinct. (See the decision in
     Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I.7).
15. In Sunil Bharti Mittal’s case (supra), this Court interpreted the
    expression “sufficient grounds for proceeding” and held that there
    should be sufficiency of materials against the accused concerned
    before proceeding under Section 204, Cr.PC. It was held thus:-
            “53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding”
            appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It
            is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to
            be formed only after due application of mind that there is
            sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and
            formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order
            itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given
            therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima
            facie case against the accused, though the order need not
            contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad
            in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.”
16. In the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla &
    Anr.8, this Court held that the settled position for summoning of an
    accused is that the Court has to see the prima facie evidence. This
    Court went on to hold that the ‘prima facie evidence’ means the evidence
    sufficient for summoning the accused and not the evidence sufficient
    to warrant conviction. The inquiry under Section 202, Cr.PC, is limited
    only to ascertain whether on the material placed by the complainant
    a prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused or not.



7   [2015] 1 SCR 377 : (2015) 4 SCC 609
8   [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 371 : (2005) 8 SCC 89
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                              1233

                Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


17. In an earlier decision in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa
    Konjalgi & Ors.9, this Court laid down certain conditions whereunder
    a complaint can be quashed invoking the power under Section 482,
    Cr.PC, thus: -
            "(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
                 statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the
                 same taken at their face value make out absolutely
                 no case against the accused or the complaint does
                 not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence
                 which is alleged against the accused;
            (2)     where the allegations made in the complaint are
                    patently absurd and inherently improbable so that
                    no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that
                    there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
                    accused;
            (3)     where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
                    issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having
                    been based either on no evidence or on materials
                    which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
            (4)     where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
                    defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a
                    complaint by legally competent authority and the like.”
18. Having understood the scope of interference with issuance of
    summons in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC, we will
    move on to consider the question whether the impugned order justifies
    such interference or in other words, whether impugned order invites
    interference? We have briefly narrated the case revealed from the
    complaint and also taken note of the fact(s) that the High Court
    under the impugned judgment arrived at the finding that no material
    is available, suggesting instigation by the respondent No.2 in the
    suicide note and nothing indicative of occurrence of an incidence and
    utterance of words as mentioned by the complainant, were vividly
    stated or even alluded, therein. In view of the fact that summons
    was issued to the respondent No.2 to stand the trial for the offence
    under Section 306, IPC it is only apt to analyse the said Section to


9   [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 123 : (1976) 3 SCC 736
1234                                                       [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


      find out the ingredients to attract the same and also whether the
      complaint and the evidence collected during the inquiry and also
      during the investigation which resulted in the filing of the closure
      report prima facie discloses sufficient ground for proceeding and
      to issue summons to the respondent No.2 to face the trial for the
      offence under Section 306, IPC.
19. In the decision in M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu10, this
    Court considered Section 306, IPC and its co-relation with Section
    107, IPC after referring to the decisions in M. Mohan v. State
    represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police11, Madan
    Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.12, and Chitresh Kumar
    Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)13. After analysing the
    provisions under Section 306, IPC with reference to ‘abetment’, as
    defined under Section 107, IPC and the decisions in M. Mohan’s
    case (supra), Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) and Chitresh
    Kumar Chopra’s case (supra) it was held that “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 about the suicide of the person concerned 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,…” Thus,
    in view of the decision, it is clear that what matters in deciding the
    question whether there is ground for proceeding against a particular
    person and to issue summons to him to face the trial for the offence
    under Section 306, IPC is whether the complaint and the materials
    collected during the inquiry/investigation prima facie disclose mens
    rea on the part of the accused to bring about suicide of the victim.
    This position of law and condition Nos. 1 and 2 in Smt. Nagawwa’s
    case (supra), extracted in paragraph 17 above, are to be borne in
    mind while considering the question whether a prima facie case
    of ‘abetment of suicide’ is made out against the respondent No.2.
    Obviously, the High Court held it in the negative under the impugned
    judgment. As per the complainant, who was examined before the


10   [2024] 2 SCR 1054 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 238
11   [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626
12   [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628
13   [2009] 13 SCR 230 : (2009) 16 SCC 605
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1235

             Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     learned Magistrate in the inquiry, the respondent No.2 by uttering the
     instigative words on 12.10.2004 (extracted hereinbefore) abetted his
     father to commit suicide. However, the impugned judgment would
     reveal that the High Court upon careful perusal of the suicide note
     found conspicuous absence of any reference, either explicitly or
     implicitly, in the suicide note regarding any such occurrence, as
     alleged by the complainant, on 12.10.2004 or anything suggesting
     that the respondent No.2 was conscious of the fact that the victim
     was bent upon to commit suicide in case of non-disbursement of
     salary and despite such knowledge he desisted disbursal of salary
     and instigated the victim to commit suicide.
20. As per the impugned judgment the High Court went on to consider
    and held thus:-
           “As per mandate of this Section, there must be explicit
           or implicit abetment or some overt act indicative or
           suggestive of fact that some instigation was given for
           committing suicide and the applicant was having an
           interest in it. Nothing has surfaced, which may reflect on
           the mindset of the applicant that he ever intended the
           consequence that the deceased would commit suicide
           and with that view in mind, he stopped payment of salary.
           Had it been the actual position then obviously the suicide
           note must have whispered about that particular aspect
           or it would have at least alluded to that situation, but
           on careful perusal of the suicide note it explicit that the
           deceased himself was bent upon committing suicide in
           case the salary was not drawn in his favour. But under
           circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the
           applicant was conscious of that position and knowing
           the same situation he insisted that he would not pay the
           salary in question. The trial court, however, ignoring all
           these legal aspects took cognizance of the offence by
           rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating
           Officer and issued process against the applicant by way
           of summoning. Resultantly, this application is allowed.
           Criminal proceedings of impugned order dated 05.04.2012
           passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in
           Criminal Case No.1478 of 2012, Vikas Vs. Ram Babu,
           Case Crime No.C-2 of 2005, under Section 306 IPC,
1236                                                          [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


             Police Station- Alhaganj, District Shahjahanpur by which
             the applicant has been summoned to face the trial is
             hereby quashed.”
21. Certain relevant and indisputable aspects revealed from the material
    on record are also to be noted, with reference to the relevant
    decisions, as under:
      (i)    There is no explicit or implicit reference about any occurrence on
             12.10.2004 involving the deceased and the respondent No.2, as
             alleged in the complaint and as stated by the complainant in the
             inquiry, is made in the so-called suicide note dated 23.10.2004;
      (ii)   There is no proximity between the alleged occurrence of
             utterance of the so-called instigative words on 12.10.2004 and
             the commission of suicide by Brijesh Chander inasmuch as it
             was committed only on 23.10.2004. The so-called suicide note
             did not refer to any such occurrence. If any such incident had,
             in troth, occurred and if that was the reason which pushed him
             to commit suicide it would have been mentioned, explicitly or
             implicitly in the so-called suicide note, as rightly observed and
             held by the High Court. What makes it dubious and unfit for
             being formative foundation for prosecution for an offence under
             Section 306, IPC, will be dealt with a little later.
22. It is to be noted that apart from the above mentioned alleged incident,
    there is no allegation of continued course of conduct (against the
    respondent No.2) creating circumstances compelling the victim to
    or leaving the victim with no other option but to, commit suicide. In
    this contextual situation from the decision of this Court in Chitresh
    Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)14, paragraphs 16
    and 17 therein dealing with the expression ‘instigation’ are worthy
    for reference and they read thus:-
             “16…instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
             or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of
             “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words
             must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation”
             must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
             consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the


14   [2009] 13 SCR 230 : (2009) 16 SCC 605
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                                1237

                 Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


              consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where
              the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued
              course of conduct, created such circumstances that the
              deceased was left with no other option except to commit
              suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be
              inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
              intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be
              said to be instigation.”
                     “17.Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who
                     instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
                     encourage the doing of an act by the other by
                     “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning
                     of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone
                     into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise
                     Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or
                     annoying somebody until he reacts…”
                                                     (emphasis in original)
23. In the decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh15, this
    Court held that where the accused by his acts or continued course
    of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left
    with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may
    be inferred.
24. Now, reverting to the so-called suicide note, we do not find any
    reason to interfere with its evaluation by the High Court, for reasons
    more than one. We have already noted the conspicuous absence
    of any reference about the alleged incident on 12.10.2004 involving
    the deceased and the respondent No.2, either explicitly or implicitly,
    therein. Before looking into and applying the principles enunciated
    for appreciation of a suicide note in the decisions of this Court in
    Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal16 and Madan Mohan Singh’s
    case (supra), we will have a glance at the tenor of the suicide note.
    As observed and held by the High Court, the so-called suicide note
    would 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


15   [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : [(2001) 9 SCC 618]
16   (2005) 2 SCC 659
1238                                                       [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     commit suicide. Though it is stated that the respondent No.2 is
     responsible for his suicide however, there is absolute absence of any
     material or even a case in the complaint and in the so-called suicide
     note that the respondent No.2 has abetted late Brijesh Chandra in
     a manner that will attract the provisions under Section 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, ‘Shri Ram Babu Sharma, 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 under Section 306, IPC. The principles enunciated
     in Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) and Netai Dutta’s case
     (supra), on application to the facts obtained in this case would also
     justify the interference by the High Court with the subject summons.
25. In the case on hand, the undisputable position is 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.
26. In Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra), the salary of the deceased,
    who was allegedly abetted to commit suicide, for 15 days was
    deducted by the accused. That apart, in that case also a suicide
    note was left by the deceased, which in so far as it is relevant was
    quoted in paragraph 7 of the said decision thus: -
          “I am going to commit suicide due to his functioning style.
          Alone M.M. Singh, DET 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 humbly request the
          enquiry officer that my wife and son may not be harassed.
          My life has been ruined by M.M. Singh”.
27. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgment, in so far as they are
    relevant are also worthy to be extracted. They read thus: -
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                              1239

             Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


           “13…… 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
           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 appellant-
           accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation
           and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential
           one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused
           to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant
           experience. The person like the appellant in the 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…
           14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of
           about 15 pages, all that we can say 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 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 such basis, it will be difficult for
           every superior officer even to work.”
28. In Netai Dutta’s case (supra) from the dead body a suicide note
    was recovered and on its basis the police registered a case against
    the appellant under Section 306, IPC. Paragraphs 5, in so far as it
    is relevant, and 6 of the said decision read thus: -
           “5. …An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if
           there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The
           parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107
           of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person
           abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to
           do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided
           any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107
1240                                                      [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment
          of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also
          come within the contours of “abetment”.
          6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
          appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act
          or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to
          have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally
          aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
          committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the
          appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy,
          which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission
          of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.”
29. In short, applying the principles of the decisions referred above
    to the facts of the case on hand would reveal that the impugned
    judgment of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity,
    illegality or perversity and the conclusions are arrived at after a
    rightful appreciation of the complaint and the other materials on
    record, within the permissible parameters.
30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find
    anything warranting any interference by this Court. The appeal is,
    therefore, dismissed.

     Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey                 Result of the case:
                                                          Appeal dismissed.