Uttarakhand High CourtVivek @ Sachin Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 24 February, 2020Author:Ravindra MaithaniBench:Ravindra MaithaniIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL\n             Criminal Misc. Application No. 287 of 2020\n\nVivek @ Sachin Kumar                            ...................Petitioner\n\n                                      vs.\n\nState of Uttarakhand and another                ...............Respondents\n\n\nMr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate for the applicant.\nMr. S.S.Adhikari, AGA, present for the State.\n\n\nHon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)The instant petition underSection 482of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has\n\nbeen filed to quash the summoning order dated 27.11.2019 and the\n\nentire proceedings of Criminal CaseNo. 1238 of 2019, State vs. Jyoti\n\n& others, for the offence underSections 306and506IPC, pending in\n\nthe Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar\n\n(for short 'the case').2.            The case is based on an FIR lodged on 9th August 2019,\n\nby respondent no.2 against the petitioner and others, underSections\n\n306and506IPC. According to it, deceased Dharmendra, son of\n\nrespondent no.2 was married with Jyoti, the daughter of Dinesh on 4th\n\nMay, 2014. After the marriage, the deceased Dharnmendra was\n\npressurized and mentally tortured to stay away from his parents. On\n\n02.07.2019, deceased Dharmendra was called by his in-laws, since\n\nthereafter, he was staying with them. Petitioner is his brother-in-law.2Deceased Dharmendra had also disclosed it to the respondent no.2 that\n\nhis in-laws had taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from him, but did not return it.\n\nWhen requested, they further tortured him. On 2nd August, 2019, it was\n\ninformed that Dharmendra died. Respondent no.2 reached his in-laws\n\nhouse, where he found that the deceased Dharmendra had recorded a\n\nsuicide note on his leg & thigh and held his wife, her brothers, maternal\n\nuncles and others responsible for his death.3.            After the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted\n\nagainst the petitioner and others for the offence underSections 306and506IPC.4.            Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that\n\nexcept two named persons in the FIR, namely, petitioner Bachan Singh\n\nand Virju, entire family have been implicated; the FIR is delayed. It is\n\nargued that since the petitioner is a family member, he has been falsely\n\nimplicated.5.            Learned counsel for the State has placed before the Court\n\nthe photographs of the writings on the body of the deceased. He\n\nfurther submits that it is a fair investigation. Two named accused have\n\nbeen exonerated as their names in the crime were not found true. It is\n\nalso argued that there is evidence against the petitioner in the case.6.            Prima facie, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable\n\noffence. The deceased Dharmendra has written on his body that his\n\nwife, her family members and others are responsible for his death. He3was pressurized and tortured by his in-laws.Section 306IPC provides\n\npunishment for abatement of suicide, which reads as hereunder:"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any persons commits suicide,\n          whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be\n          punished with imprisonment of either description for a term\n          which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to\n          fine."7.           Abetment has been defined underSection 107IPC.\n\nAccording to it, "a person abates the doing of a thing, who instigates to\n\nany person to do that thing; or..................."8.In the case ofAmit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9\n\nSCC 460, this provision has further been interpreted by Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court. It was inter alia held that "Instigation has to be\n\ngathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of\n\ndirect evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the\n\nsuicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the\n\naccused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it\n\ndifficult to continue existence."9.           As stated, in the instant case, the FIR, prima facie\n\ndiscloses commission of cognizance offence. After the investigation,\n\ncharge sheet has been submitted underSections 306and506of IPC\n\nagainst the petitioner and others. Truthfulness of the averments in the\n\nFIR or of suicide note are the subject matter of trial. It cannot be\n\ndecided in these proceedings underSection 482of the Code. Therefore,\n\nthe petition deserves to be dismissed.410.          Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that\n\ndirections may be issued that the bail application of the petitioner be\n\nconsidered on the same day, when he surrenders before the court\n\nconcerned.11.          The petition is dismissed.12.          However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court\n\nconcerned and apply for his bail, the same may be disposed of, as\n\nexpeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.(Ravindra Maithani, J.)\n                                               24.02.2020\nKaushal