Supreme Court Overturns Quashing of Abetment to Suicide Charges: Narayan Malhari Thorat vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1018
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. (Bench of 2 Judges)
Can a High Court quash a First Information Report (FIR) for abetment of suicide at the initial stage of investigation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the extent of the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This case involved a man accused of abetting the suicide of his colleague, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether the High Court was right in quashing the FIR based on its assessment of the accused’s intent. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case revolves around an FIR lodged by Narayan Malhari Thorat (the appellant) against Vinayak Deorao Bhagat (the first respondent). The appellant’s daughter and son-in-law were teachers at a Zila Parishad School where the first respondent also worked. The appellant alleged that the first respondent harassed his daughter by repeatedly calling her on her mobile phone. Despite the son-in-law’s attempts to stop the first respondent, the calls continued. On February 9, 2015, a verbal altercation occurred between the son-in-law and the first respondent. Tragically, on February 12, 2015, the son-in-law committed suicide, leaving behind a note that implicated the first respondent. The suicide note stated: “Sir Police Station Officer, I humbly request that my family life has been ruined by Vinayak Bhagat & therefore he should not be pardoned this is humble request & he should be hanged till death this is my last wish”

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The first respondent’s application for anticipatory bail was initially rejected by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Washim, on February 21, 2015. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, also rejected his anticipatory bail application on April 7, 2015, noting that the first respondent was constantly calling the wife of the deceased despite being asked to stop. The High Court observed that the statements of the victim’s parents and wife indicated that the first respondent’s actions had caused mental pressure and depression on the victim. This order was challenged by the first respondent by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3497 of 2015, but the Supreme Court rejected the challenge on April 29, 2015. The first respondent then filed Criminal Application No. 380 of 2015 in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court allowed this application and quashed the FIR, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. It states:
“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.”
The Supreme Court also considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court had invoked this provision to quash the FIR.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court was wrong to assess whether the first respondent had the intention to abet suicide at the stage of quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The appellant contended that the High Court should not have gone into the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the intention to abet suicide, especially when the investigation was still ongoing.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The first respondent contended that the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as there was no material to show that he had the intention to aid, instigate, or abet the suicide.
• The first respondent relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659], M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626], and State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others [(2015) 9 SCC 639] to support his argument that the High Court was right in quashing the FIR.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by assessing whether the respondent had the requisite intention to abet the commission of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the initial stage of the investigation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659]*, stating that the facts were different in that case.
• The Court also distinguished M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC 626]*, noting that the allegations in that case were not directly connected to the suicide.
• The Court distinguished State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others [(2015) 9 SCC 639]*, stating that the suicide note in that case was vague and did not establish abetment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had prematurely assessed the mental element of the accused while quashing the FIR. The Court emphasized that when there are specific allegations of harassment and a suicide note directly implicating the accused, the investigation should be allowed to proceed without interference at an initial stage. The Court noted that the High Court should not have entered into the question of whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid, instigate, or abet the commission of suicide, especially when the investigation was yet to be completed. The Court highlighted the specific allegations of the first respondent repeatedly calling and harassing the victim’s wife, coupled with the suicide note, as sufficient grounds to allow the investigation to continue.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court stated, “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.” The Court further added, “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.” The Court also observed, “We have not and shall not be taken up to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter which shall be considered at the appropriate stage.”

The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on previous cases, distinguishing them on the basis of facts. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the mental element of the accused at the initial stage of the investigation, which should not have been done.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not assess the mental element of an accused in cases of abetment to suicide at the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, especially when the investigation is still ongoing.
• Specific allegations of harassment and a suicide note directly implicating the accused are sufficient grounds to allow the investigation to proceed.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that the investigation process should not be prematurely curtailed by the High Court’s intervention unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the concerned authorities to complete the investigation as early as possible, as the investigation was stalled due to the High Court’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not assess the mental element of the accused at the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in cases of abetment to suicide, especially when the investigation is still ongoing and there are specific allegations and a suicide note implicating the accused. This judgment clarifies the scope of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and reinforces the principle that the investigation process should not be prematurely curtailed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Narayan Malhari Thorat vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat sets aside the High Court’s order that quashed the FIR against the respondent for abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have assessed the mental element of the accused at the initial stage of the investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that when there are specific allegations and a suicide note implicating the accused, the investigation should be allowed to proceed, and the High Court should not interfere at this stage. This judgment reinforces the importance of allowing the investigation process to run its course and clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Abetment to Suicide
• Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Quashing of FIR
• High Court Powers
• Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is abetment of suicide?
A: Abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is when someone encourages or assists another person to commit suicide. It is a criminal offense.

Q: What is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants inherent powers to the High Court to make orders to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is often used to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court should not have quashed the FIR for abetment of suicide at the initial stage of investigation by assessing the mental element of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the investigation should proceed when there are specific allegations and a suicide note implicating the accused.

Q: What does this mean for future cases?
A: This judgment clarifies that High Courts should be cautious in using their powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash FIRs related to abetment of suicide, especially when the investigation is ongoing and there are specific allegations and a suicide note implicating the accused. The investigation process should be allowed to run its course.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of abetment of suicide?
A: If you are accused of abetment of suicide, it is crucial to seek legal advice immediately. The police will investigate the allegations, and the matter may proceed to court. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and navigate the legal process.