2024 INSC 261 SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 1 of 26

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2024

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1196/2018)

Vikas Chandra ...Appellant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

C. T. Ravikumar, J.

Leave granted.

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the

judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application

under Section 482 No.5961 of 2013. As per the

impugned order, in invocation of the power under

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 2 of 26

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short “the Cr.PC”), the High Court quashed the

order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case

No.1478 of 2012, summoning the respondent No. 2

herein in the appeal to face the trial for the offence

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short “the IPC”).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1–State of Uttar Pradesh and the learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. It is a matter where, initially, the complainant

approached the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate with a

complaint and on being refused to forward the

complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3),

Cr.PC, the matter was taken up in revision and upon its

dismissal before the High Court in Criminal

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.9134/2005.

Consequently, based on the orders of the High Court

thereon, F.I.R. No.107/2005 was registered at Alhaganj

Police Station under Section 306, IPC. The final report

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 3 of 26

filed under Section 173(2), Cr.PC, would reveal that

after the investigation, virtually, a closure report was

filed by the investigating agency. The learned

Magistrate did not accept the closure report. In the

protest petition filed by the appellant herein the

learned Magistrate made an inquiry as contemplated

under Section 202, Cr.PC, and based on all the

materials collected issued summons to respondent No.2

herein as per order dated 05.04.2012 and it is the

challenge against the same that culminated in the

impugned order.

4. Compendiously stated, the case of the appellant is

that respondent No.2 committed abetment of suicide

inasmuch as his father Shri Brijesh Chandra, committed

suicide, by consuming poison, in the office of Sub-

Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working, after leaving a

suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on

respondent No.2. The appellant’s father was earlier

working in Mandi Samiti, Puwaya as Security Guard and

the respondent No.2 was the then Secretary of the

Mandi Samiti. The complaint is to the effect that the

salary of the deceased from March, 2004 to August,

2004 and September, 2004 onwards was not paid by

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 4 of 26

Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad and on 12.10.2004, when he

requested for its release, respondent No.2 told: -

“I will see that how will you get your salary and

who will help you in getting your salary, I will

bring out your military-man-ship and either you

die or your children, but I do not care, get out of

here, why you do not take poison”.

5. According to the appellant, the deceased was a

retired military man and subsequent to the events on

12.10.2004 he returned home in moony mood and on

23.10.2004 at around 10.00 a.m. went to attend duty at

Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj from Warikhas and committed

suicide thereafter leaving a suicide note noting down

such incident as well.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival contentions and also have gone through the

detailed discussion made by the High Court to come to

the conclusion to invoke the power under Section 482,

Cr.PC, to quash the order dated 05.04.2012. The bifold

contentions of the appellant raised, based on law,

against the impugned judgment are as under :-

(i) The High Court has committed grave error in

law in quashing the summons issued against

respondent No.2;

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 5 of 26

(ii) The High Court has stepped beyond the

settled guidelines and parameters ordained by

this Court in catena of decisions with respect to

exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC, and

in view of such guidelines and parameters, the

High Court was not justified in interfering with the

summons issued by the Trial Court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 would submit that though the

Magistrate is having the power to issue summons

despite the fact that the Final Report filed under Section

173 (2), Cr.PC, is a closure report in the case on hand, it

was issued against the respondent No.2 without

satisfying on the ground for proceeding further in the

manner required under law . At any rate, the

summoning order did not reflect application of mind to

form the opinion regarding sufficient basis for

proceeding against him. The learned counsel for the

State, the first respondent, would submit that there

occurred no legal error in the matter of exercise of

power by the High Court and hence, the order of the

High Court did not suffer from any infirmity requiring

interference.

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 6 of 26

8. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the

power of the Magistrate to issue summons even after

filing of a negative report by the police. In other words,

the Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final

Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC. The power

not to accept the Final Report and to issue summons to

the accused is recognized by this Court in the decision

in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr.

1. In this

context, it is to be noted that this Court in the decision

in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

2

held that when a Final Report under Section 173 (2),

Cr.PC, is filed before the Magistrate, which happens to

be a negative report, usually called a “closure report”,

he gets the following four choices to be adopted, taking

into account the position obtained in the case

concerned:

(1) to accept the report and drop the Court

proceedings (2) to direct further investigation to be

made by the police (3) to investigate himself or

refer for the investigation to be made by another

Magistrate under Section 159, Cr.PC, (4) to take

cognizance of the offence under Section 200,

1

(2003) 6 SCC 195

2

(1985) 2 SCC 537

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 7 of 26

Cr.PC, as a private complaint when the materials

are sufficient in his opinion and if the complainant

is prepared for that course.

9. Now, there can be no two views that “existence of

power” and “exercise of power” are different and

distinct. Having found that a Magistrate is

jurisdictionally competent to take cognizance and issue

summons despite the receipt of closure report following

the prescribed procedure, we will have to consider the

sustainability of the exercise of such power, in view of

the legal and factual position obtained, in this case. In

the decision in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special

Judicial Magistrate & Ors.

3, this Court laid down the

golden standard for summoning an accused after

holding that summoning an accused is a serious matter

involving interference with life and liberty of a person.

Paragraph 28 therein is noteworthy and it reads thus: -

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case

is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into

motion as a matter of course. it is not that the

complainant has to bring only two witnesses to

support his allegations in the complaint to have the

criminal law set into motion. The order of the

magistrate summoning the accused must reflect

3

(1998) 5 SCC 749

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 8 of 26

that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case

and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine

the nature of allegations made in the complaint and

the evidence both oral and documentary in support

thereof and would that be sufficient for the

complainant to succeed in bringing charge home

to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a

silent spectator at the time of recording of

preliminary evidence before summoning of the

accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the

evidence brought on record and may even himself

put questions to the complainant and his witnesses

to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the

allegations or otherwise and then examine if any

offence is prima facie committed by all or any of

the accused.”

10. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to

refer to the decision of this Court in D.N. Bhattacharjee

& Ors v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

4, wherein this

Court observed that while conducting an inquiry, the

Magistrate could go into the merits of the evidence

collected by the investigating agency to determine

whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.

It is relevant to note, in this context, that the sine

qua non for exercise of the power under Section 204,

Cr.PC, to issue process is the subjective satisfaction

regarding the existence of sufficient ground for

4

(1972) 3 SCC 414

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 9 of 26

proceeding.

11. Paragraph 7 in D.N. Bhattacharjee’s case (supra),

in so far as it is relevant, reads thus: -

“7…… It is true that the Magistrate is not debarred,

at this stage, from going into the merits of the

evidence produced by the complainant. But, the

object of such consideration of the merits of the

case, at this stage, could only be to determine

whether there are sufficient grounds for

proceeding further or not”.

12. In Mehmood Ul Rehman & Ors. v. Khazir

Mohammad Tunda and Ors.

5 this Court held thus: -

“22…..The satisfaction on the ground for

proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in

the complaint would constitute an offence, and

when considered along with the statements

recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused

answerable before the court……….In other words,

the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking

cognizance of each and every complaint filed

before him and issue process as a matter of course.

There must be sufficient indication in the order

passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the

allegations in the complaint constitute an offence

and when considered along with the statements

recorded and the result of inquiry or report of

investigation under Section 202 of CrPC, if any, the

accused is answerable before the criminal court,

5

(2015) 12 SCC 420

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 10 of 26

there is ground for proceeding against the accused

under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for

appearance. Application of mind is best

demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the

satisfaction………..To be called to appear before

criminal court as an accused is serious matter

affecting one’s dignity, self respect and image in

society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall

not be made a weapon of harassment.”

13. A close scrutiny of the position of law revealed

from the aforesaid decisions, which are constantly and

consistently being followed by this Court, would reveal

that issuance of summons is a serious matter and,

therefore, shall not be done mechanically and it shall

be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for

proceeding further in the matter against a person

concerned based on the materials collected during the

inquiry.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next question

to be considered is whether a summons issued by a

Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the

power under Section 482, Cr.PC. In the decisions in

Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

6

and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd.’s case (supra) this Court

6

(2012) 5 SCC 424

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 11 of 26

held that a petition filed under Section 482, Cr.PC, for

quashing an order summoning the accused is

maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is

held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue

summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground

for proceeding further” while exercising the power to

consider the legality of a summons issued by a

Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look

into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate

had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the

existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further

and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for

the offence concerned. In this context, we think it

appropriate to state that one should understand that

‘taking cognizance’, empowered under Section 190,

Cr.PC, and ‘issuing process’, empowered under

Section 204, Cr.PC, are different and distinct. (See the

decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I.

7).

15. In Sunil Bharti Mittal’s case (supra), this Court

interpreted the expression “sufficient grounds for

proceeding” and held that there should be sufficiency of

materials against the accused concerned before

7

(2015) 4 SCC 609

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 12 of 26

proceeding under Section 204, Cr.PC. It was held

thus:-

“53. However, the words “sufficient ground for

proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of

immense importance. It is these words which amply

suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after

due application of mind that there is sufficient basis

for proceeding against the said accused and

formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the

order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no

reason is given therein while coming to the

conclusion that there is prima facie case against the

accused, though the order need not contain

detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad

in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie

incorrect.”

16. In the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.

Neeta Bhalla & Anr.

8, this Court held that the settled

position for summoning of an accused is that the Court

has to see the prima facie evidence. This Court went on

to hold that the ‘prima facie evidence’ means the

evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not

the evidence sufficient to warrant conviction. The

inquiry under Section 202, Cr.PC, is limited only to

ascertain whether on the material placed by the

8

(2005) 8 SCC 89

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 13 of 26

complainant a prima facie case was made out for

summoning the accused or not.

17. In an earlier decision in Smt. Nagawwa v.

Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors.

9, this Court

laid down certain conditions whereunder a complaint

can be quashed invoking the power under Section 482,

Cr.PC, thus: -

“(1) where the allegations made in the

complaint or the statements of the witnesses

recorded in support of the same taken at their

face value make out absolutely no case

against the accused or the complaint does not

disclose the essential ingredients of an offence

which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the

complaint are patently absurd and inherently

improbable so that no prudent person can

ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the

Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and

arbitrary having been based either on no

evidence or on materials which are wholly

irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from

fundamental legal defects, such as, want of

sanction, or absence of a complaint by

legally competent authority and the like.”

9

(1976) 3 SCC 736

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 14 of 26

18. Having understood the scope of interference with

issuance of summons in exercise of power under

Section 482, Cr.PC, we will move on to consider the

question whether the impugned order justifies such

interference or in other words, whether impugned

order invites interference? We have briefly narrated

the case revealed from the complaint and also taken

note of the fact(s) that the High Court under the

impugned judgment arrived at the finding that no

material is available, suggesting instigation by the

respondent No.2 in the suicide note and nothing

indicative of occurrence of an incidence and utterance

of words as mentioned by the complainant, were vividly

stated or even alluded, therein. In view of the fact that

summons was issued to the respondent No.2 to stand

the trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC it is only

apt to analyse the said Section to find out the

ingredients to attract the same and also whether the

complaint and the evidence collected during the

inquiry and also during the investigation which resulted

in the filing of the closure report prima facie discloses

sufficient ground for proceeding and to issue summons

to the respondent No.2 to face the trial for the offence

under Section 306, IPC.

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 15 of 26

19. In the decision in M. Vijayakumar v. State of

Tamil Nadu

10, this Court considered Section 306, IPC

and its co-relation with Section 107, IPC after referring

to the decisions in M. Mohan v. State represented by

the Deputy Superintendent of Police

11, Madan Mohan

Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

12, and Chitresh Kumar

Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

13. After

analysing the provisions under Section 306, IPC with

reference to ‘abetment’, as defined under Section 107,

IPC and the decisions in M. Mohan’s case (supra),

Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) and Chitresh

Kumar Chopra’s case (supra) it was held that “in order

to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific

abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the

part of the accused with an intention to bring about the

suicide of the person concerned as a result of that

abetment is required. The intention of the accused to

aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit

suicide is a must for this particular offence under

Section 306, IPC,…” Thus, in view of the decision, it is

clear that what matters in deciding the question

10

2024 SCC OnLine SC 238

11

(2011) 3 SCC 626

12

(2010) 8 SCC 628

13

(2009) 16 SCC 605

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 16 of 26

whether there is ground for proceeding against a

particular person and to issue summons to him to face

the trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC is

whether the complaint and the materials collected

during the inquiry/investigation prima facie disclose

mens rea on the part of the accused to bring about

suicide of the victim. This position of law and condition

Nos. 1 and 2 in Smt. Nagawwa’s case (supra), extracted

in paragraph 17 above, are to be borne in mind while

considering the question whether a prima facie case of

‘abetment of suicide’ is made out against the

respondent No.2. Obviously, the High Court held it in

the negative under the impugned judgment. As per the

complainant, who was examined before the learned

Magistrate in the inquiry, the respondent No.2 by

uttering the instigative words on 12.10.2004 (extracted

hereinbefore) abetted his father to commit suicide.

However, the impugned judgment would reveal that the

High Court upon careful perusal of the suicide note

found conspicuous absence of any reference, either

explicitly or implicitly, in the suicide note regarding

any such occurrence, as alleged by the complainant, on

12.10.2004 or anything suggesting that the respondent

No.2 was conscious of the fact that the victim was bent

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 17 of 26

upon to commit suicide in case of non-disbursement of

salary and despite such knowledge he desisted

disbursal of salary and instigated the victim to commit

suicide.

20. As per the impugned judgment the High Court

went on to consider and held thus:-

“As per mandate of this Section, there must be

explicit or implicit abetment or some overt act

indicative or suggestive of fact that some

instigation was given for committing suicide and

the applicant was having an interest in it. Nothing

has surfaced, which may reflect on the mindset of

the applicant that he ever intended the

consequence that the deceased would commit

suicide and with that view in mind, he stopped

payment of salary. Had it been the actual position

then obviously the suicide note must have

whispered about that particular aspect or it would

have at least alluded to that situation, but on

careful perusal of the suicide note it explicit that

the deceased himself was bent upon committing

suicide in case the salary was not drawn in his

favour. But under circumstances, there is nothing to

suggest that the applicant was conscious of that

position and knowing the same situation he insisted

that he would not pay the salary in question. The

trial court, however, ignoring all these legal

aspects took cognizance of the offence by rejecting

the final report submitted by the Investigating

Officer and issued process against the applicant by

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 18 of 26

way of summoning. Resultantly, this application is

allowed. Criminal proceedings of impugned order

dated 05.04.2012 passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case

No.1478 of 2012, Vikas Vs. Ram Babu, Case Crime

No.C-2 of 2005, under Section 306 IPC, Police

Station- Alhaganj, District Shahjahanpur by which

the applicant has been summoned to face the trial

is hereby quashed.”

21. Certain relevant and indisputable aspects

revealed from the material on record are also to be

noted, with reference to the relevant decisions, as

under:

(i) There is no explicit or implicit reference

about any occurrence on 12.10.2004 involving the

deceased and the respondent No.2, as alleged in

the complaint and as stated by the complainant in

the inquiry, is made in the so-called suicide note

dated 23.10.2004;

(ii) There is no proximity between the alleged

occurrence of utterance of the so -called

instigative words on 12.10.2004 and the

commission of suicide by Brijesh Chander

inasmuch as it was committed only on 23.10.2004.

The so-called suicide note did not refer to any

such occurrence. If any such incident had, in

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 19 of 26

troth, occurred and if that was the reason which

pushed him to commit suicide it would have been

mentioned, explicitly or implicitly in the so-called

suicide note, as rightly observed and held by the

High Court. What makes it dubious and unfit for

being formative foundation for prosecution for an

offence under Section 306, IPC, will be dealt with

a little later.

22. It is to be noted that apart from the above

mentioned alleged incident, there is no allegation of

continued course of conduct (against the respondent

No.2) creating circumstances compelling the victim to

or leaving the victim with no other option but to, commit

suicide. In this contextual situation from the decision of

this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of

NCT of Delhi)

14, paragraphs 16 and 17 therein dealing

with the expression ‘instigation’ are worthy for

reference and they read thus:-

“16…instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,

incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the

requirement of “instigation”, though it is not

necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes “instigation” must

necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the

14

(2009) 16 SCC 605

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 20 of 26

consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite

the consequence must be capable of being spelt

out. Where the accused had, by his acts or

omission or by a continued course of conduct,

created such circumstances that the deceased was

left with no other option except to commit suicide,

in which case, an “instigation” may have to be

inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion

without intending the consequences to actually

follow, cannot be said to be instigation.”

“17.Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person

who instigates another has to provoke, incite,

urge or encourage the doing of an act by the

other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The

dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a

thing that stimulates someone into action;

provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise

Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating

or annoying somebody until he reacts…”

(emphasis in original)

23. In the decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh

15

, this Court held that where the accused

by his acts or continued course of conduct creates such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other

option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be

inferred.

15

[(2001) 9 SCC 618]

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 21 of 26

24. Now, reverting to the so-called suicide note, we

do not find any reason to interfere with its evaluation by

the High Court, for reasons more than one. We have

already noted the conspicuous absence of any

reference about the alleged incident on 12.10.2004

involving the deceased and the respondent No.2, either

explicitly or implicitly, therein. Before looking into and

applying the principles enunciated for appreciation of a

suicide note in the decisions of this Court in Netai Dutta

v. State of West Bengal

16 and Madan Mohan Singh’s

case (supra), we will have a glance at the tenor of the

suicide note. As observed and held by the High Court,

the so-called suicide note would not reveal and reflect

that the victim was disturbed on account of non-receipt

of salary and for that reason, he was bent upon to

commit suicide. Though it is stated that the respondent

No.2 is responsible for his suicide however, there is

absolute absence of any material or even a case in the

complaint and in the so-called suicide note that the

respondent No.2 has abetted late Brijesh Chandra in a

manner that will attract the provisions under Section

107, IPC. There is absolute absence of any allegation of

continued course of conduct on the part of the

16

(2005) 2 SCC 659

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 22 of 26

respondent No.2 with a view to create circumstances

leaving the deceased with no other option except to

commit suicide. In such circumstances, the mere

statement in suicide note dated 23.10.2004, ‘Shri Ram

Babu Sharma, Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Puwaya will be

responsible for his suicide’ would not be a ground at all

to issue summons to the respondent No.2 to face the

trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC. The

principles enunciated in Madan Mohan Singh’s case

(supra) and Netai Dutta’s case (supra), on application

to the facts obtained in this case would also justify the

interference by the High Court with the subject

summons.

25. In the case on hand, the undisputable position is

that at the time of the commission of suicide, the

deceased was not working in the office of Mandi Samiti,

Puwaya where the respondent No.2 was working as

Secretary and when the former committed the suicide

he was attached to the office of the Mandi Samiti,

Jalalabad and was working in Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj.

26. In Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra), the salary

of the deceased, who was allegedly abetted to commit

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 23 of 26

suicide, for 15 days was deducted by the accused. That

apart, in that case also a suicide note was left by the

deceased, which in so far as it is relevant was quoted in

paragraph 7 of the said decision thus: -

“I am going to commit suicide due to his

functioning style. Alone M.M. Singh, DET

Microwave Project is responsible for my death. I

pray humbly to the officers of the Department that

you should not cooperate as human being to

defend M.M. Singh. M.M. Singh has acted in breach

of discipline disregarding the norms of discipline. I

humbly request the enquiry officer that my wife

and son may not be harassed. My life has been

ruined by M.M. Singh”.

27. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgment, in so

far as they are relevant are also worthy to be extracted.

They read thus: -

“13…… In fact, there is no nexus between the so-

called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there

is no material on record) and any of the alleged

acts on the part of the appellant. There is no

proximity either. In the prosecution under Section

306 IPC, much more material is required. The

courts have to be extremely careful as the main

person is not available for cross-examination by

the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is

specific allegation and material of definite nature

(not imaginary or inferential one), it would be

hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 24 of 26

trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant

experience. The person like the appellant in the

present case who is serving in a responsible post

would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to

face prosecution on absurd allegations of

irrelevant nature…

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a

document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is

that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who

felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him.

The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at

all. They cannot be depicted as expressing

anything intentional on the part of the accused that

the deceased might commit suicide. If the

prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis,

it will be difficult for every superior officer even to

work.”

28. In Netai Dutta’s case (supra) from the dead body

a suicide note was recovered and on its basis the police

registered a case against the appellant under Section

306, IPC. Paragraphs 5, in so far as it is relevant, and 6

of the said decision read thus: -

“5. …An offence under Section 306 IPC would

stand only if there is an abetment for the

commission of the crime. The parameters of

“abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the

Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person

abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any

person to do that thing; or engages with one or

more other person or persons in any conspiracy for

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 25 of 26

the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission

takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the

person should have intentionally aided any act or

illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107

says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful

concealment of a material fact which he is bound to

disclose, may also come within the contours of

“abetment”.

6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name

of the appellant at two places, there is no reference

of any act or incidence whereby the appellant

herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act

or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the

deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act

of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has

played any part or any role in any conspiracy,

which ultimately instigated or resulted in the

commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar

Nag.”

29. In short, applying the principles of the decisions

referred above to the facts of the case on hand would

reveal that the impugned judgment of the High Court

did not suffer from any legal infirmity, illegality or

perversity and the conclusions are arrived at after a

rightful appreciation of the complaint and the other

materials on record, within the permissible parameters.

30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, we do not find anything warranting any

SLP (Crl.) No.1196 of 2018 Page 26 of 26

interference by this Court. The appeal is, therefore,

dismissed.

........................,J.

(C.T. Ravikumar)

........................,J.

(Rajesh Bindal)

New Delhi;

February 22, 2024.