Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of FIR in Abetment to Suicide Case: Munshiram vs. State of Rajasthan (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 09 April 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 294

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a High Court quash a First Information Report (FIR) for abetment of suicide at a preliminary stage, without allowing the police to conduct a thorough investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had quashed an FIR, deeming it premature. This judgment underscores the importance of allowing the investigative process to run its course before making any conclusions about the merits of a case.

The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in quashing an FIR filed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The appellant’s son, Brijesh Singh, married Khushboo (Respondent No. 2) on 10th February 2008. They had a son on 29th October 2009. The relationship between Brijesh and Khushboo was fraught with conflict, marked by multiple complaints filed by Khushboo against her husband, which were later compromised. Brijesh had also filed a complaint on 13th July 2010, alleging atrocities by Khushboo and her family. On 7th March 2013, Khushboo initiated another proceeding against Brijesh. Brijesh was allegedly under constant fear of arrest and harassment due to these cases. A compromise was reached, but Khushboo filed another FIR on 152 of 2013 against Brijesh and his family under Sections 147, 323, 341, and 351 of the IPC. Additionally, Khushboo also filed a domestic violence case against Brijesh.

On 8th July 2013, Brijesh Singh committed suicide, allegedly due to continuous humiliation and suffering inflicted by his wife and her family. Before his death, Brijesh wrote two suicide notes.

In the first suicide note, Brijesh alleged that his wife, Khushboo, and her family had been threatening him and his family, accusing them of being dacoits, and had filed false cases of dowry and domestic violence. He also alleged that his wife had illicit relations with other men and that they were conspiring to grab his parents’ factory and house. In the second suicide note, Brijesh reiterated the allegations of false cases and mental stress caused by his wife and her family. He expressed his love for his wife but also mentioned her betrayal and requested that she be removed from his parents’ house and that their safety be ensured.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Munshiram, filed an FIR under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the respondent-wife and her family members, alleging that they had harassed his son, Brijesh Singh, leading to his suicide. The police, after investigation, reported to the trial court on 11th March 2014, that the suicide notes matched the handwriting of the deceased as confirmed by the forensic science laboratory. Aggrieved by the FIR, the accused respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, seeking to quash the FIR No. 318 of 2013. The High Court, on 15th April 2015, quashed the FIR, stating that the alleged offense of abetment of suicide was not made out in this case. The High Court reasoned that the suicide notes referred to various litigations and criminal complaints which were a result of the actions of the deceased, and not filed to harass him. The High Court also noted that the allegation of adultery by the respondent-wife was not supported by any material, and the deceased’s bad behavior and alcoholism were admitted in the compromise affidavit. The High Court concluded that the suicide notes did not reveal any ingredients of abetment or instigation of suicide and that there was no intention on the part of the accused to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The High Court also observed that the suicide notes admitted depression on the part of the deceased.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 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.”

Additionally, the High Court’s power to quash an FIR is derived from Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which states:

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

This section grants the High Court the inherent power to prevent abuse of the legal process. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that this power should be used sparingly and with great care. The Supreme Court has clarified that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process and that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold level without allowing the police to investigate the matter.
• The appellant contended that the High Court’s decision was premature and that the investigation should have been allowed to proceed, especially given the FSL report confirming the suicide notes were written by the deceased.
• The appellant relied on the status report and the FSL report to argue that there was a prima facie case for continuing the investigation.
• The appellant asserted that the facts of the case, particularly the suicide notes, indicated that the deceased was under severe mental stress due to the actions of the respondents.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The counsel for the respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the suicide was the deceased’s own doing.
• The respondents contended that they were not to blame for the suicide, as the litigation against the deceased was a result of his own actions and behavior.
• The respondents argued that the deceased was an alcoholic and had a history of bad behavior, which was admitted in the compromise affidavit.
• The respondents maintained that there was no evidence of abetment or instigation to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR at the threshold stage without allowing the police to investigate the matter, particularly in light of the suicide notes and the FSL report?

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:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines and penalizes the abetment of suicide.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section grants the High Court the inherent power to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Cases:

The judgment does not specify any case laws relied upon by the court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)* to understand the legal definition of abetment of suicide and the necessary elements to establish the offense.
• The Court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)* to emphasize that while the High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, this power should be used sparingly and not to interfere with legitimate investigations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the investigation process was not prematurely terminated. The presence of suicide notes, which were confirmed by the FSL report, indicated a prima facie case that required thorough investigation. The court was also concerned that the High Court had made factual assertions about the deceased’s mental state and the reasons for the suicide without a proper investigation. The following points weighed in the mind of the Court:

• The need for a proper investigation to ascertain the facts of the case.
• The FSL report confirming the suicide notes.
• The premature nature of the High Court’s decision.
• The need to adhere to the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of CrPC.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, but rejected it because the High Court had made factual assertions without a thorough investigation. The court emphasized that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to determine the facts of the case. The court’s decision was reached by applying the settled principles of law under Section 482 of CrPC and emphasizing the need for a proper investigation before quashing an FIR.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold stage without allowing the investigation to proceed. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 of CrPC should be used cautiously and that the investigation should not be interfered with unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process. The Court noted that the FSL report and the status report indicated a prima facie case for investigation.

The court stated, “In this case at hand, the court abridged the investigation which needed to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the FIR concerning the existence or non-existence of any prior mental condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide.”

The court further noted, “We cannot agree with the reasons provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factual assertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of the deceased and reasons for committing suicide because acceptance of the said would not be in consonance with the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of CrPC as laid down by various judgments of this Court.”

The court also clarified, “It would be relevant to note that any observation made herein should not be taken as observations on merits and we direct the investigative authority as well as the court to consider the matter on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation herein.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court should not quash an FIR at the threshold stage without allowing the police to conduct a proper investigation, especially in cases involving serious allegations like abetment of suicide.
• The power under Section 482 of the CrPC should be used sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of the legal process.
• Factual assertions about the mental state of the deceased and the reasons for suicide should not be made without a proper investigation.
• The FSL report and the status report are important pieces of evidence that should be considered before quashing an FIR.
• The investigation should be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the investigative authorities to complete the investigation with promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion. The Court also clarified that any observations made in the judgment should not be taken as observations on the merits of the case and that the matter should be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made by the Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not prematurely quash an FIR, especially in cases of abetment of suicide, without allowing the investigative process to run its course. This judgment reinforces the principle that the power under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The Supreme Court reiterated that the investigation should not be interfered with unless there is a clear abuse of legal process. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing legal position regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court, which had quashed the FIR for abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation process to proceed without undue interference from the High Court, especially in cases where there are serious allegations and a prima facie case for investigation. The Court directed the investigative authorities to complete the investigation promptly and take it to its logical conclusion.