Supreme Court overturns quashing of abetment to suicide case: Mahendra K C vs. State of Karnataka (29 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 749
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and B V Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court quash a criminal case of abetment to suicide based on its own assessment of the evidence before the trial has even begun? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had quashed a case of abetment to suicide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by evaluating the evidence and conducting a mini-trial instead of focusing on whether the allegations in the complaint, on the face of it, constituted an offense. This judgment clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with B V Nagarathna, J, concurring.

Case Background

On 6 December 2016, Mahendra K C (the appellant), filed a complaint at Maddur Police Station regarding the death of his brother. The deceased worked as a driver for the second respondent, a Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) of the State of Karnataka. The complaint stated that the deceased had informed the appellant and a friend, Shiva Kumar, about the second respondent’s alleged illegal activities, including amassing disproportionate assets and using the deceased’s bank account for transferring funds. The deceased also mentioned that he was being threatened by the second respondent and another driver.

On 6 December 2016, the deceased was found dead in a lodge room. A suicide note, along with a liquor bottle and poison, was discovered near his body. The suicide note, which was also uploaded on his Facebook account, detailed the second respondent’s alleged illegal activities and stated that the deceased was ending his life due to threats and harassment from the second respondent and his driver.

Following the complaint, an FIR was registered on 6 December 2016 against the second respondent and his driver for offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent was arrested on 11 December 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The second respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court stayed the investigation and proceedings. After hearing arguments, the High Court allowed the petition on 29 May 2020, quashing the FIR and all related proceedings. The High Court reasoned that the suicide note was not detailed enough regarding the threats, and that the investigation had not produced any corroborating evidence. The complainant and the State of Karnataka then filed appeals before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the abetment of suicide.

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“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.”

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines “abetment”:
“107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who — 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 lakes 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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.”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which outlines the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the legal process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the High Court should not act as a court of appeal or revision at the stage of quashing an FIR.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Appellant (Complainant) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in quashing the FIR, especially when the investigation was still ongoing.
• The High Court failed to recognize the seriousness of the allegations against the accused.
• The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by acting as a court of appeal or revision.
• The allegations in the FIR and complaint, when taken at face value, indicate the commission of an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The deceased had informed the complainant and other witnesses about the harassment he faced from the accused.
• The suicide note details the illegal activities of the accused and how the deceased was used for transferring funds.
• The High Court improperly assessed the veracity of the allegations, which is not within the purview of a petition to quash a criminal complaint.

Appellant (State of Karnataka) Arguments:

• The suicide note was recovered by the police and uploaded by the deceased on his Facebook account.
• The High Court’s stay on investigation prevented the forensic analysis of the suicide note.
• The complaint and suicide note detail the harassment caused to the deceased, establishing a case of abetment of suicide.
• A separate complaint filed by a friend of the deceased corroborates the allegations in the present case.

Respondent (Accused) Arguments:

• Abetment requires instigation to the point where the victim has no option but to commit suicide.
• The allegations do not meet the requirements to establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The High Court correctly found the allegations in the suicide note to be improbable.
• The complainant’s version has contradictions and inconsistencies.
• The suicide note does not mention any specific act by the accused that drove the deceased to commit suicide.
• Extensive investigations found no incriminating evidence against the accused.
• Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to prove abetment unless the accused’s actions compel the person to commit suicide.

The innovativeness of the arguments was not specifically highlighted in the judgment by either party.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This involved examining whether the allegations in the complaint, on their face, constituted an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction.

The court also considered the sub-issue of whether the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence and the veracity of the allegations at the stage of considering the quashing petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key cases and legal provisions to reach its decision:

Cases:

• State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [2005] 13 SCC 540 (Supreme Court of India): This case established that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. The inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution.
• State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1992] Supp (1) SCC 335 (Supreme Court of India): This case laid down the principles for the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash an FIR, including where the allegations do not constitute an offense or are inherently improbable.
• State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori [2012] 10 SCC 155 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated that the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision when the facts are incomplete and the evidence has not been collected.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618 (Supreme Court of India): This case defined “instigation” in the context of abetment of suicide, stating that it involves goading, urging, provoking, or encouraging an act.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that for abetment of suicide, the accused must have irritated or annoyed the deceased to the point where they had no other option but to commit suicide.
• Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2010] 1 SCC 707 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement.
• Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 734 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide.
• Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 7 SCC 781 (Supreme Court of India): This case also dealt with the concept of abetment of suicide.
• M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By Its Inspector of Police) [2019] 3 SCC 315 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the need for a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
• Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [2019] 17 SCC 301 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated the principles for abetment of suicide.
• Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana [2020] 15 SCC 359 (Supreme Court of India): This case also dealt with the concept of abetment of suicide.
• Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab [2020] 10 SCC 200 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide.
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra [2021] 2 SCC 427 (Supreme Court of India): This recent case also referred to the principles for abetment of suicide.
• State of Telangana v. Managipet [2019] 19 SCC 87 (Supreme Court of India): This case reaffirmed the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).

Legal Provisions:

• Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for abetment of suicide.
• Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Definition of abetment.
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [2005] 13 SCC 540 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to emphasize that the High Court should not act as an appellate court in Section 482 CrPC proceedings.
• State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [1992] Supp (1) SCC 335 (Supreme Court of India): Used as a guide to determine when a High Court can quash an FIR, highlighting the need to consider the allegations at face value.
• State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori [2012] 10 SCC 155 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to reinforce that the High Court should not make prima facie decisions when evidence is incomplete.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618 (Supreme Court of India): Used to define “instigation” in the context of abetment of suicide.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to clarify the requirement that the accused must have irritated or annoyed the deceased to the point of suicide for abetment.
• Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2010] 1 SCC 707 (Supreme Court of India): Used to emphasize the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement for abetment of suicide.
• Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [2012] 9 SCC 734 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to discuss the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide.
• Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 7 SCC 781 (Supreme Court of India): Used to further discuss the concept of abetment of suicide.
• M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By Its Inspector of Police) [2019] 3 SCC 315 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to discuss the need for a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
• Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [2019] 17 SCC 301 (Supreme Court of India): Used to reiterate the principles for abetment of suicide.
• Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana [2020] 15 SCC 359 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to further discuss the concept of abetment of suicide.
• Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab [2020] 10 SCC 200 (Supreme Court of India): Used to discuss the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide.
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra [2021] 2 SCC 427 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to refer to the principles for abetment of suicide.
• State of Telangana v. Managipet [2019] 19 SCC 87 (Supreme Court of India): Used to reaffirm the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Jurisdictional Overreach by the High Court: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by conducting a mini-trial and assessing the veracity of the allegations instead of focusing on whether the complaint, on its face, disclosed an offense.
• Prima Facie Case of Abetment: The Court determined that the allegations in the complaint and the suicide note, when taken together, established a prima facie case for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Importance of Investigation: The Court emphasized that the investigation had been stayed by the High Court, which prevented the collection of crucial evidence. The High Court had also made observations diminishing the importance of mental health.
• Limitations on High Court’s Power: The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the High Court should not act as a court of appeal or revision at the stage of quashing an FIR.
• Mental Health Considerations: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s observations on the behavior of the deceased, noting that it diminished the gravity of mental health issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• Limitations on High Court’s Power under Section 482 CrPC: The High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The High Court should not act as a court of appeal or revision at the stage of quashing an FIR.
• Prima Facie Case for Abetment: If the allegations in the complaint and the available evidence, when taken at face value, establish a prima facie case for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the High Court should not quash the FIR.
• Assessment of Evidence: The High Court should not assess the evidence or conduct a mini-trial at the stage of considering a petition to quash an FIR. Its role is limited to determining whether the allegations, on their face, disclose an offense.
• Importance of Investigation: The investigation process is crucial for gathering evidence, and the High Court should not interfere with it unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following observations that may be considered obiter dicta:

• Mental Health Observations: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s observations on the behavior of the deceased, noting that it diminished the gravity of mental health issues.
• Importance of Forensic Analysis: The Supreme Court noted the importance of conducting a forensic analysis of the suicide note, which had been prevented by the High Court’s stay order.
• Need for Thorough Investigation: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to determine the truth of the allegations.

These observations, while not directly forming the basis of the judgment, provide valuable insights into the court’s thinking and its approach to such cases.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahendra K C vs. State of Karnataka is a significant decision that clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court should not act as a court of appeal or revision at the stage of quashing an FIR and should focus on whether the allegations, on their face, disclose an offense. The Supreme Court also reinforced the importance of a thorough investigation and the need to consider mental health issues seriously in such cases. By overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has ensured that the investigation into the alleged abetment of suicide will proceed, allowing the truth to be determined through due process.