Availing Of One’s Legal Remedy Cannot Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana HC In Case Where Deceased Was Convicted In NI Act Case Filed By Accused
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that availing of one’s legal remedy cannot amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation.
A prayer in the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. was for quashing the case under Sections 306, 34, 120-B, and 420 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings against the accused.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, “… availing of ones legal remedy cannot amount to abetment in the absence of any specific allegation of harassment or instigation. Even otherwise, the proceedings qua to main accused, namely, Sharanjit Singh and Jaskirat Singh already stand quashed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue against the present petitioner.”
Advocate Vinay Puri appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused while AAG Harkanwar Jeet Singh and Advocate A.P. Kaushal appeared on behalf of the State and complainant (respondents) respectively.
Facts of the Case -
A criminal complaint was instituted at the instance of the co-accused against the deceased with respect to the dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 90,000/-. The deceased was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate and the brother of the co-accused filed a criminal complaint against the deceased with respect to the dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. The deceased preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, however, the same was consigned to the record as the deceased had committed suicide.
The deceased had also instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from misusing and handing over blank undated cheques to any other person. As the plaintiff did not appear in Court, the said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the deceased had committed suicide by consuming Aluminum Phosphate, leading to the registration of the FIR under Sections 306, 34, 120-B IPC, and Section 420 IPC. The charges came to be framed under by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and thereafter, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “As to what constitutes abetment has been a matter of considerable debate. … In the instant case, firstly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Even in the suicide note, no specific role whatsoever has been attributed to him. The prosecution has come up with multiple explanations as to how the cheques in question came into the possession of the accused including the petitioner.”
The Court said that the fact remains that in the complaint filed by the petitioner, the deceased came to be convicted and his appeal stood dismissed.
The Court also referred to the case of Harbhajan Sandhu versus State of Punjab and another, wherein the question answered by the court was as to whether being named in a suicide note, proves the guilt of the accused. It was held in this case as under:
“Even, otherwise, merely being named in a suicide note would not by itself establish the guilt of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out. In the present case, taking the suicide note to be absolutely correct, the allegations therein do not constitute an offence for which the petitioner can be prosecuted.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition and quashed the case against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and another (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:133001)
