Rule.
Learned APP Shri Pandya waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned advocate Shri Jasani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
Petitioner is original accused. He seeks quashing of complaint annexure A bearing C.R.No.I-62 of 2010 registered at Dhoraji Police Station on two grounds, firstly, that the complaint does not disclose any offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and secondly that the complainant has agreed not to press the charges.
At the outset, I am of the opinion that the second ground, in the facts of the present case, cannot be pressed in service. A complaint for offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which is otherwise also a non-compoundable offence, cannot be quashed on compromise between the parties. On a person committing suicide, if it is found that such offence was abeted by any of the accused, it is highly questionable that the complainant whose only role is to bring to the notice of the authorities the commission of such offence could thereafter turn around and say that he chooses not to press the charges. I am of the firm opinion that in a case like the one punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal code, there is no question of compromise between the parties. This contention is therefore summarily rejected.
On merits, however, I find that the petitioner has a valid case. The complainant who is the brother of the deceased in the impugned FIR has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 2nd October 2010 in the afternoon, he received a call from his brother Raufbhai who told him that he has consumed poisonous pesticides in his house. Thereupon the complainant went to the house of his brother and inquired why he had taken such step, upon which his brother told that he had taken large debt from the accused who is seeking recovery of it. He has, however, no resources to pay the same and he is unable to bear the harassment. His brother was, thereafter, shifted to a hospital where he unfortunately died later. Other than these averments in the FIR, there are no other allegations against the present petitioner or any other person.
Upon bare perusal of the said FIR, it can be clearly seen that no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is disclosed. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken on face value and the complaint is read as a whole, ingredients of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not established. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code pertains to offence of abetment of suicide. The term 'abetment' has been defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code in following manner:
"107.
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."
For the reasons which do not need elaboration, second clause of section 107 would not apply in the present case. So far as first clause is concerned, it requires instigation by any person to do a thing. Admittedly, no such instigation was provided by the petitioner to the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poison. So far as third clause of section 107 is concerned, it pertains to intentionally aiding by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. Considering the allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission the act of suicide by the deceased.
To reiterate, there are no allegations in the FIR that in order to recover the debt, the petitioner-original-accused was using any illegal means, strong arm tactics, was persistently harassing, browbeating, threatening or in any manner pressurizing the deceased to such an extent that he was so disheartened as to end his life finding that he has no choice but to commit suicide.
Under the circumstances, I find that the offence of abetment of suicide is not disclosed in the complaint at Annexure A. The same is therefore quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct service.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top