Supreme Court Quashes Summons for Abetment of Suicide: Vikas Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (22 February 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Magistrate can issue summons for abetment of suicide based on a suicide note and a complaint, despite a police closure report and lack of explicit instigation.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Vikas Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Judgment Date: 22 February 2024

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 261

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a person be charged for abetment of suicide based on a suicide note and a complaint, even when the police investigation suggests otherwise? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a son accused a man of abetting his father’s suicide. The core issue revolved around whether the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a trial for abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the High Court’s decision to quash the summons issued by the Magistrate, ultimately upholding the High Court’s order. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case began when the appellant’s father, Shri Brijesh Chandra, committed suicide on 23 October 2004 by consuming poison at his workplace in Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj. Before his death, he left a suicide note implicating the respondent No. 2, who was the Secretary of Mandi Samiti, Puwaya, where the deceased previously worked as a Security Guard. The appellant alleged that his father’s salary from March 2004 to August 2004 and September 2004 onwards was not paid by Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad. On 12 October 2004, when the deceased requested his salary, the respondent No. 2 allegedly threatened him, stating, “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 ”. The appellant’s father, a retired military man, reportedly returned home in a disturbed state after this incident and later committed suicide.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the complainant approached the jurisdictional Magistrate, who refused to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC). This decision was challenged in revision, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, based on the High Court’s orders, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police filed a closure report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC, which the Magistrate did not accept. The Magistrate, after conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.PC based on a protest petition filed by the appellant, summoned the respondent No. 2 to face trial under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court, in its order dated 10 October 2017, quashed this summoning order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play in this case are:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the 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.”
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines abetment. It states that a person abets the doing of a thing if they instigate any person to do that thing or engage with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or intentionally aid the doing of that thing.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.
• Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the police report after investigation.
• Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.
• Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the Magistrate’s power to postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case.
• Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the issue of process by the Magistrate.

These provisions are interpreted within the framework of the Constitution, ensuring that individual liberty is protected while upholding the rule of law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in quashing the summons issued against respondent No. 2.
• The High Court exceeded its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC by interfering with the Trial Court’s summons, which was issued after due inquiry.
• The respondent No.2’s actions and words on 12 October 2004, coupled with the suicide note, constitute sufficient grounds for a trial under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent No. 2’s Submissions:

• The Magistrate issued the summons without proper application of mind and without sufficient grounds for proceeding.
• The summoning order did not reflect that the Magistrate had formed an opinion regarding sufficient basis for proceeding against him.
• The suicide note does not explicitly or implicitly mention the alleged incident of 12 October 2004, nor does it suggest any instigation by the respondent No. 2.

State’s Submissions:

• The High Court did not err in exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
• The High Court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument is based on the premise that the respondent’s words and actions on 12 October 2004, combined with the suicide note, are sufficient to establish abetment. This argument attempts to link a specific incident with the eventual suicide, highlighting the alleged instigative nature of the respondent’s statements.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court committed an error in quashing the summons issued against respondent No. 2.
2. Whether the High Court exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters regarding the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. [2003] 6 SCC 195* to affirm that a Magistrate can issue summons even after a negative police report, but emphasized the need for proper application of mind.
• The Court referred to Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr. [1985] 2 SCC 537* to outline the four options available to a Magistrate upon receiving a closure report, highlighting the importance of due process.
• M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [1998] 5 SCC 749* was cited to underscore that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring careful consideration of facts and law.
• The Court used D.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [1972] 3 SCC 414* to support the view that a Magistrate can examine the merits of evidence to determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.
• Mehmood Ul Rehman & Ors. v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors. [2015] 12 SCC 420* was referred to emphasize that a Magistrate should not act as a post office and must be satisfied that the allegations constitute an offense.
• The Court relied on Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [2012] 5 SCC 424* to confirm that a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash a summoning order is maintainable.
• Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I. [2015] 4 SCC 609* was cited to interpret the expression “sufficient grounds for proceeding,” emphasizing the need for sufficient material against the accused.
• The Court referred to S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [2005] 8 SCC 89* to clarify that prima facie evidence means evidence sufficient for summoning, not for conviction.
• Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. [1976] 3 SCC 736* was used to outline the conditions under which a complaint can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
• The Court followed M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 2024 SCC OnLine SC 238* to emphasize the requirement of specific abetment with intent to cause suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [2011] 3 SCC 626* was used to discuss the requirements of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2010] 8 SCC 628* was followed to discuss the requirements of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the importance of the suicide note.
• The Court used Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605* to explain the meaning of “instigation” in the context of abetment of suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]* was followed to highlight that instigation can be inferred if the accused created circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
• The Court referred to Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal [2005] 2 SCC 659* to discuss the parameters of abetment and the interpretation of suicide notes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any explicit or implicit reference to the alleged incident of 12 October 2004 in the suicide note. The Court emphasized that for an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a clear indication of abetment with the intention to cause suicide. The Court also noted the lack of proximity between the alleged instigative words and the act of suicide. The judgment highlights the importance of a direct nexus between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. The Court also considered the fact that the deceased was not working under the respondent No.2 at the time of the suicide.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing summons. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to do so and that there was no prima facie case of abetment of suicide. The High Court’s decision to quash the summons was therefore upheld, as it was found to be within the permissible parameters of Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key reasons:

• “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”.
• “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”.
• “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.”

There was no dissenting opinion. The two-judge bench unanimously agreed that the High Court’s decision was legally sound.

The Court’s reasoning highlighted the importance of a direct nexus between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. It emphasized that a mere statement in a suicide note, without any supporting evidence of abetment, is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This judgment has potential implications for future cases involving abetment of suicide, particularly in cases where the evidence is based on suicide notes and alleged instigative words. It reinforces the need for a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances before initiating criminal proceedings.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reiterated the existing legal framework and principles related to abetment of suicide and the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Key Takeaways

• A Magistrate cannot issue summons for abetment of suicide merely based on a suicide note without sufficient evidence of instigation.
• The High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash summons issued without proper application of mind by the Magistrate.
• For an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be a clear indication of abetment with the intention to cause suicide.
• A mere statement in a suicide note, without any supporting evidence of abetment, is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.
• The proximity between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide is a crucial factor.

This judgment reinforces the need for a cautious approach in cases of abetment of suicide and emphasizes the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal proceedings.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Magistrate cannot issue summons for abetment of suicide merely based on a suicide note without sufficient evidence of instigation, and the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash such summons. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a new position of law.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the summons issued against the respondent No. 2. The Court found that the Magistrate had not applied his mind properly and that there was no prima facie case of abetment of suicide. This judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough analysis of evidence and a direct nexus between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide before initiating criminal proceedings.