Manager Asking Employee To Explain Irregularity In Books Of Accounts Not Abetment To Commit Suicide U/S 306 IPC: Gujarat High Court

The recent ruling of the Gujarat Hight Court has made it clear that a Manager asking its employee to explain alleged irregularities in the books of accounts does not amount to abetment to commit suicide under section 306 of the IPC.

A bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak observed,

"If the person who is sentimental and if he takes some ultimate steps which does not amount to abetting the commission of crime in question and therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 114 read with Section 306 of IPC is not made out."

The Petitioners in this case, Managers of a petrol pump, suspected malpractices and misappropriation on part of the deceased and had asked him about the complete details of the account with regard to the payment against sale. However, the deceased soon died by committing suicide by pouring inflammable material on himself.

Thereafter, deceased's wife lodged an FIR against the Petitioners, accusing them of pressurizing the deceased, levelling false and frivolous allegations upon him with regard to the accounts, and threatening him- as a result of which, he had committed suicide.

Senior Advocate Yatin Oza for the petitioners contended that for the charge of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is necessary that the abetment as described under Section 107 of the IPC should exist, failing which, the FIR under Section 306 of the IPC is liable to be quashed.

APP Himanshu Patel on the other hand argued that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners and even charagesheet has been filed. With regard to the dispute of account, the petitioners have made false allegations against the deceased and, therefore, they have compelled the deceased to take this harsh step by committing suicide, it was submitted.

Justice Prachchhak, while setting out the factual background, stated, “Considering the facts of the present case and considering the averments made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioners which cannot attract Section 306 read with Section 114 of IPC. As the dispute is clearly in nature where the persons who are running the petrol pump certainly asked about the account, as they have sold the petroleum products after receiving the amount and if the deceased has not deposited the amount then they can certainly ask the deceased that why he has not credited the amount in the account. It does not amount to abetment to commit a suicide, more particularly it cannot be attracted the provisions of Sections 114 and 306 of IPC.”

It said nothing is found from the charge-sheet papers which indicates that the petitioners acted in such a manner that they instigated the deceased to commit suicide or that they abetted in the crime.

Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, A.K. Chaudhary vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2005] 3 GLH 444 Imtiyaz Gafar Supediwala vs. State of Gujarat decision dated 19.10.2010 in Special Criminal Application No.2063 of 2010, Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal vs. State of Gujarat decision dated 27.6.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19305 of 2020, the court held, "When there is no material against the present petitioners to indicate that they have either instigated deceased or abetted the deceased to commit suicide, present FIR is required to be quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings arising out of the same.”

Case title: RATILAL KALIDAS VARMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2390 of 2022

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 60

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment