While Quashing Case For Abetment To Suicide, Court Must Apply Test Of How Normal Person Would React When Faced With 'Incidents Of Harassment': P&H HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while quashing FIR on abetment to suicide the Court must test how a normal person would react to the alleged incidents of harassment.
The Court quashed the FIR lodged on abetment to suicide for allegedly compelling the deceased to end his life on account of harassment he faced because the accused persons refused to pay his dues.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "While dealing with a petition for quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC, the test that the Court must apply is the reaction of a normal person of ordinary prudence when faced with incidents of harassment."
The Court said that if the Court feels that the level of harassment faced was such that even a person of ordinary prudence with normal behaviour and reactions would be forced to take the extreme step of committing suicide, then the Court would do well in not quashing proceedings.
"On the other hand, if the Court comes to the conclusion that an ordinary person with normal reactions to harassment would not commit suicide but the deceased did so on account of his hypersensitive nature or other contributing factors then the Court must not hesitate in quashing the proceedings," it added.
These observations were made while hearing the plea to quash the FIR against two accused persons filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR lodged under Sections 306 and 34 IPC in 2023.
It was alleged that three men harassed the deceased as they were not paying him his dues because of this he was forced to commit suicide. A suicide note was also produced wherein the names of three accused were mentioned and the deceased made them responsible for his death.
A video recording was also recovered as per which the deceased was heard stating that he was going to commit suicide on account of non-payment of dues by the three named accused.
After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to a catena of judgements of the Supreme Court and said, "There must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide inasmuch as the instigation or illegal act of omission or commission at the hands of the accused must be the only factor which subsequently led the deceased to commit suicide."
Justice Bedi explained that, to constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of an accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. There must be a positive act on the part of an accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
"Further, merely being named in a suicide would not by itself establish the culpability of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out," the judge added.
Perusing the FIR and suicide note the judge said that, it "does not disclose any specific incidents of acute harassment which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, there has been absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioners to aid or instigate the deceased for committing suicide."
The Court said that from the allegations on the record, it has not been established that the petitioners intended to push the deceased to such a situation that he would ultimately commit suicide.
It concluded that "apparently a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature. In fact, the complainant party including the deceased could very well have availed their legal remedies in accordance with law to recover the amounts due to them."
Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-62885-2023.
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-583-2024.
Mr. Karan Garg, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1.
Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
Title: SUNIL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 255