VIKAS CHANDRA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines the legality of the High Court’s decision to quash a Magistrate’s order summoning the respondent to face trial under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for alleged abetment of suicide. The appellant contended that the deceased, his father, left a suicide note attributing responsibility to the respondent due to non-payment of salary and alleged instigative remarks. However, the Supreme Court analyzed whether the elements of abetment under Section 107 IPC were sufficiently established. The Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the absence of proximate causation, direct evidence of instigation, or mens rea necessary to constitute abetment. Summoning an accused, the Court held, must not be mechanical but supported by adequate materials satisfying judicial scrutiny.

Keywords: Abetment of Suicide, Section 306 IPC, Summons Quashing, Instigation, Mens Rea, Judicial Scrutiny

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date: February 22, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal

vi) Author: Justice C.T. Ravikumar

vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223; 2024 INSC 261

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, Sections 482, 202, 204, and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal arose from a High Court order quashing the summoning of respondent No. 2 under Section 306 IPC by a Magistrate in a case alleging abetment of suicide. The appellant’s father, a retired military officer, committed suicide at his workplace, leaving a note implicating the respondent, a Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. The deceased alleged harassment over unpaid dues and instigative remarks made by the respondent. The case questioned whether the procedural and substantive requirements for issuing summons had been adhered to, and whether the allegations amounted to abetment under criminal law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The appellant’s father was a retired military man employed as a security guard in Mandi Samiti offices at Puwaya and later at Jalalabad.

  2. The deceased’s salary remained unpaid for months, leading to financial distress. On October 12, 2004, the respondent allegedly made derogatory and provocative remarks, such as suggesting the deceased “take poison.”

  3. On October 23, 2004, the deceased consumed poison and left a suicide note naming the respondent as responsible.

  4. A complaint was filed, followed by an FIR under Section 306 IPC. However, the police filed a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

  5. The Magistrate rejected the closure report and issued summons after an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC.

  6. The respondent challenged the summons before the High Court, which quashed it, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the summons issued under Section 306 IPC.

  2. Whether the allegations and materials on record sufficiently established the elements of abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

  3. Whether the Magistrate followed due process in issuing summons under Section 204 CrPC despite the closure report.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Allegation of Provocation: The appellant claimed the respondent’s instigative remarks on October 12, 2004, directly led to the deceased’s suicide.

  2. Rejection of Closure Report: The Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in rejecting the closure report and summoning the respondent based on available evidence.

  3. Error in Quashing: The High Court failed to appreciate that summons issuance involves subjective satisfaction of sufficient grounds, which the Magistrate duly established.

  4. Mens Rea: The suicide note and circumstances pointed to mens rea on the part of the respondent, fulfilling the criteria for abetment under Section 107 IPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Absence of Proximate Cause: The alleged instigative remarks occurred more than ten days before the suicide, lacking proximity to constitute abetment.

  2. No Mens Rea or Instigation: The respondent argued that there was no deliberate or intentional act to provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide.

  3. Closure Report Validity: The police investigation found no sufficient evidence of abetment, justifying the closure report.

  4. High Court Jurisdiction: The High Court was correct in exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings lacking substantive merit.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

  1. Summons Requirements: Summoning an accused is a serious matter. The Magistrate must demonstrate application of mind and judicial satisfaction based on evidence.

  2. Ingredients of Abetment: To attract Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish instigation or a deliberate act to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment or grievances do not suffice.

  3. Evaluation of Evidence: The alleged incident on October 12, 2004, found no corroboration in the suicide note or other evidence.

  4. High Court’s Interference: The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in quashing the summons under Section 482 CrPC, given the absence of prima facie material.

b. Obiter Dicta
  • Summoning orders must balance the rights of the accused with the complainant’s grievance, ensuring judicial scrutiny.
c. Guidelines

  1. Summons issuance must involve careful judicial consideration and satisfaction of sufficient grounds.

  2. Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires direct or indirect evidence of mens rea, instigation, or a deliberate act.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, particularly in issuing summons. The judgment clarifies the stringent requirements for establishing abetment under Section 306 IPC and reiterates the necessity of judicial application of mind.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
  1. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja [(2003) 6 SCC 195]
  2. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537]
  3. M. Mohan v. State [(2011) 3 SCC 626]
  4. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628]
  5. Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC 659]
b. Important Statutes Referred
  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 107
  2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 202, 204, 173(2)
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture