Cheque Dishonour | Availing One's Legal Remedy Not Abetment To Suicide In Absence Of Specific Allegation Of Harassment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that availing ones' legal remedy would not amount to the offence of abetment to suicide in absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation.The deceased was convicted in a cheque bounce case filed by the petitioners and others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, however in a suicide note he alleged that he...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that availing ones' legal remedy would not amount to the offence of abetment to suicide in absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation.
The deceased was convicted in a cheque bounce case filed by the petitioners and others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, however in a suicide note he alleged that he was falsely implicated by the petitioner along with other co-accused.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "...in the complaint filed by the petitioner, the deceased came to be convicted and his appeal stood dismissed. Therefore, availing of ones legal remedy cannot amount to abetment in the absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation."
These observations came in response to the plea filed by the petitioner Kuldeep Singh to quash the case under Sections 306, 34, 120-B IPC and 420 IPC. Multiple complaints against the deceased were filed by the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 138 NI Aact alleging cheque dishonour.
A Court of the Judicial Magistrate convicted the deceased and his appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he committed suicide leaving a note in which he denied all the allegations, stating that he has been falsely implicated.
The counsel appearing for the State contended that as per SIT, huge amount was filled in the blank cheques which was taken from the deceased as a security for giving loan. It was also submitted that proceeding against other co-accused stands quashed.
Considering the submission, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar v. Mahajan and Another, [2010(4) RCR (Criminal)] in which the Court said, "abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
The bench further referred to Apex Court's decision in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 118’ wherein it was held that, "The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 I.P.C."
Adding that the the petitioner is not named in the FIR, the Court said, "Even in the suicide note, no specific role whatsoever has been attributed to him."
In the light of the above the bench said, the fact remains that in the complaint filed by the petitioner, the deceased came to be convicted and his appeal stood dismissed. Therefore, availing of ones legal remedy cannot amount to abetment in the absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation.
Justice Bedi further said that the proceedings qua to main accused, already stand quashed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner.
In the light of the above the relief was granted and Court set aside the FIR.
Appearance: Vinay Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, for the complainant.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 209
Title: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another