Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2021
(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 4512 OF 2019)
GEO VARGHESE … APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter
referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the First Information Report dated
02.05.2018 registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur
City (South), the accused, a Physical Training Teacher in St. Xavier’s School,
Nevta, Jaipur and also a member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining
Signature Not Verified
overall discipline by the students of the School, who is to face prosecution for
Digitally signed by
Neelam Gulati
Date: 2021.10.05
15:23:40 IST
Reason:
1
offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)
is before us.
3. The appellant herein was appointed as a Physical Training Teacher in St.
Xavier’s School, Nevta in the year 2016. He was imparting Physical Training to
st th
the students from 1 to 5 standard. He was also a member of the Disciplinary
Committee for maintaining overall discipline by the students of the School.
th
4. One student of Class 9 of the institution, unfortunately, committed
suicide in the morning at about 04:00 AM on 26.04.2018. The mother of the
deceased-student lodged the FIR in question on 02.05.2018 before the
concerned Police Station under Section 306 IPC after about 7 days of the
suicide, alleging that her son committed suicide due to mental harassment meted
out by the appellant.
5. Detailed facts as unfolded in the First Information Report by the
complainant- Respondent No. 2 was that :
On 26.04.2018, my son Nitant Raj Lata, aged 14 years was found hanging
with the fan in the room at 04:00 AM by his grandmother. Immediately,
the knot was opened and after bringing him down, he was immediately
taken to Santkba Durlabhji Hospital where doctors declared him brought
dead. The Hospital administration informed the concerned Police Station
2
immediately and on the same day, the body of deceased was handed over
to the police and postmortem was conducted. It is further stated in the
FIR that on 19.04.2018, Nitant Raj (the deceased) informed her that on
the said day his PTI (Physical Training Instructor) GEO Sir had harassed
and insulted him in the presence of everyone because of which he was
under deep mental pressure. However, she persuaded her son and sent
him to the School on Monday. Thereafter, on 25.04.2018, when the child
was in the School, a telephone call was received from school at about
09:00 AM calling the parents to come to the school on the next day i.e.,
26.04.2018. When Nitant returned from the school on 25.04.2018 again
he was under very much pressure and on being inquired he told that today
again GEO PTI Sir has harassed and insulted him very much. On this she
persuaded the child that we will go to school tomorrow and will discuss
because a phone call came from the school. Thereafter, the child had been
under more severe pressure and tension. He went to his room to sleep and
was found hanging at about 04:00 AM. It is further stated that on
30.04.2018 at 11:00 AM, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Kallu Khan, came
to the house and searched his room where a suicide note in two pages and
curtain which was used for hanging and other items like a blank copy
from which two pages were torn and note book, etc. were recovered.
3
6. Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, Dr.
Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Aditya
Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 2. We have
also gone through the impugned judgment as also the record of the case with the
assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that on a plain reading of the First Information Report, by no stretch
of imagination, it can be said that necessary ingredients to constitute an offence
of abetment, as defined under Section 306 IPC, are not borne out and the
complaint does not disclose the commission of the said offence.
8. It was further asserted that the allegations made in the FIR clearly spells
out that appellant in no manner abetted the commission of suicide by the
deceased as no such material exists on record and present proceedings if
allowed to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
9. Shri Abhishek Gupta, also took us through the suicide note which is filed
as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same reveals that it is a note consisting of
three pages with following written on each separate paper :-
st
01 page – ‘MY ALL THINGS GOES TO MY DEAR BRO KAIRN EVEN MY
LOVE BYE BUDDY & SORRY’
nd
02 page – ‘NEEDED JUSTICE’
4
rd
03 page – ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’
10. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan contends that the allegations in the FIR discloses a commission of
cognizable offence and there is a suicide note specifically taking the name of the
appellant. He further contends that the appellant harassed the deceased from
19.04.2018 till 24.04.2018 and ultimately on the complaint of the appellant
when the deceased was called by the Principal on 25.04.2018 for bunking
classes and the parents were also asked to come to school on 26.04.2018, the
deceased committed suicide on the intervening night of 25.04.2018 - 26.04.2018
and there is a proximate nexus in the harassment and suicide and thus, a prima
facie case for alleged cognizable offence is made out against the appellant and
the High Court has rightly refused to quash the First Information Report.
11. Shri Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 2 – ‘the Complainant’, while trying to defend the impugned order submits
that the impugned First Information Report clearly makes out that appellant’s
direct and indirect acts of humiliation, harassment led the deceased boy to
commit suicide. He further submitted that the question of mens rea attributable
to the appellant cannot be established at this stage when the investigation is yet
to be completed.
5
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.
13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person
committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is
considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by
anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set
out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as under :-
“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary
dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a
modern latin word ‘ suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means
‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,
act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the
means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and
prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of
IPC which reads as under :-
“ 10 7. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a
thing, who—
6
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.—Whoever either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act.”
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about
or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh
1
Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under :-
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act.”
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section
306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena
2
Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. , it was observed as under:-
“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
1. (2001) 9 SCC 618
2. (2010) 12 SCC 190
7
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by the Supreme 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.”
18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
3
of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , while
considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306 IPC has
observed as under :-
“47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where
the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for
quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4
SCC 453 PART I 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless
directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused
during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to
be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this
Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having
regard to the parameters for quashing and the self
restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the
investigation ―and may pass appropriate interim orders
as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High
Court in the present case has misdirected itself in
declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing
whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction
have been duly established and if so whether a case for the
grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled
principles which have been consistently reiterated since
the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan
Lal(Bhajan Lal) include a situation where the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused. This legal position was recently
3. (2021) 2 SCC 427
8
reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court
in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra.
48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the
High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of
any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue.
The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to
a 15 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I
34 fundamental issue which needed to be considered while
dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of
the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High
Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has
instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for
hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the
appellant‘s prayer for interim bail and relegated him to
the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the
meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court
having failed to evaluate prima facie whether the
allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case
within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.”
19. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of
4
Police , a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section
306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 I.P.C. ”
4. (2019) 3 SCC 315
9
20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
5
Haryana , which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a
person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused
is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe
to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on
the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct creates a situation which
5. (2019) 17 SCC 301
10
leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners
of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim,
which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the
accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The
question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such
cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts
and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing
more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment
of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on
its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased.”
21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the
6
case of Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr.,
wherein the judgement rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under
Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section
306 IPC stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila
Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher used to make frequent
calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the
efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and
stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was
a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on
6. (2019) 13 SCC 598
11
12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has
been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged.
Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the
FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged
before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the
following observations:-
“We now consider the facts of the present case. There are
definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on
calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep
harassing her which allegations are supported by the
statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded
during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior
to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim
and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled
with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation
against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in
entering into question whether the first respondent had the
requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the
commission of suicide. At this juncture when the
investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if
any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have
gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental
element or intention on part of the respondent.”
In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication
that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had
continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct
despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively
facilitated in the commission of suicide.
12
22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under
Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of
incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself,
unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which
compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide
is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step
of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment
of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own
facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding
circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the
accused and the psyche of the deceased.
23. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the facts
of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306
IPC exist, even prima-facie , to continue with the investigations.
24. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental pressure because
the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone
and he was not willing to go to school on 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to
school by the complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was
13
under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today again he was
harassed and insulted by the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was
informed that the parents have been called to school next day and this brought
him under further severe pressure and tension.
25. In the First Information Report and as also the statement of the
complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to
harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any details with respect
to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have
felt being harassed and insulted.
26. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High
Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High
Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to
the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was
st th
imparting Physical Training to the students from 1 to 5 standard and being a
member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of
maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon
students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the
same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also
stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and
was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times. On
14
19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes and moving around
the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to
him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the appellant
issued him a warning and on account of persistent act of bunking classes,
reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of
the boy to come to the school.
27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not
uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being
upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The
disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school,
reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would
not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are
repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any
justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his
behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to
inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not
amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a
student.
28. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ an old saying may have lost its
relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not
15
recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities
have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It is not only a moral
duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular
meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity
in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or
relevant information about the child.
29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking
classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought this fact
to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come
to the school. No further overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in
the First Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor
anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note. The alleged
suicide note only records insofar as, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS
GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute
any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the
offence for which he is being charged.
30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline
and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the
institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school
16
discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or
sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same
and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306
IPC.
31. Our answer to the said question is 'No'.
32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any
act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without their being any
circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part
to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea can be
attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is conspicuously missing from
the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the absence of the element of abetment
missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under section
306 IPC do not exist.
33. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court while
mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that
FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482
CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
17
now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly,
every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and
substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers
being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great
caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested
in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However,
the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court,
entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
35. The following observations made by this Court in the case of State of
7
Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. may be relevant to note at this stage:-
“The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles
the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The High Courts have been invested with inherent power,
both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice
7. (1977) 2 SCC 699
18
must be administered according to laws made by the
legislature.”
36. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao
8
Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. , this Court observed in paragraph 7 as under :-
“7. The legal position is well-settled that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the
test to be applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish
the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for
any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court
chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore,
no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a
criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while
taking into consideration the special facts of a case also
quash the proceeding even though it may be at a
preliminary stage.”
9
37. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , this Court held that
it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify an exhaustive list of the cases, where
such power should be exercised. However, by way of illustration, the Court laid
down the following categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.
8. (1988) 1 SCC 692
9. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
19
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2)of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
20
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
38. In the case of M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd.
10
Sharaful Haque & Anr. , this Court observed as under :-
“It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion
of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process
of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When
a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look
into the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.”
39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute examination
of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document, penned
down by an immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hyper-
sensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extra-
ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the accused, who was his teacher,
otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to
commit suicide.
10. (2005) 1 SCC 122
21
40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie, in the FIR or
statement of the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any
such act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it
would be absurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to place the
deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except
to commit suicide.
41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature,
not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the
appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant
experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great
prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant
nature.
42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineated herein above
and the legal principles enunciated by a series of pronouncements of this Court
discussed herein above, we are of the view that High Court was not justified in
dismissing the application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the First
Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
43. We are conscious of the pain and suffering of the complainant who is the
mother of the deceased boy. It is also very unfortunate that a young life has
22
been lost in this manner, but our sympathies and the pain and suffering of the
complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy, much less a criminal
prosecution.
44. In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned judgment of the
High Court dated 30.04.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The
First Information Report registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station
Sodala, Jaipur City (South), stands quashed.
45. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
....…..........................J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…................................J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI;
05 OCTOBER, 2021
23