The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed by a Veterinary Life Stock Development Assistant seeking quashing of a suicide abatement charge registered against him. The High Court noted that there was positive action on the part of the petitioner proximate to the time of suicide, which prima facie led the deceased to commit suicide.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner/accused seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 306 IPC.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Karamjit Singh asserted, “It is true that administration of the department or an office requires certain hold and control of the employees by superiors but it does not require humiliation and bullying at work place.”

Advocate Ankur Malik represented the petitioner while AAG Karan Garg represented the Respondents.

The FIR, in this case, was registered on the basis of a statement made by one Manoj Kumar stating that his elder brother Joginder Singh was working as a class IV employee in the Animal Husbandry Department and was posted in a veterinary hospital. The incident is of the year 2015, when he received a telephonic message that his brother Joginder Singh committed suicide by hanging from a fan in a room of the aforesaid hospital. On reaching the hospital, he found the dead body of his brother.

A suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the trouser of the deceased wherein it was written that on that day Balwan Singh (accused) who was posted as a Veterinary Life Stock Development Assistant (VLDA) in a government veterinary hospital had insulted the deceased and called him dishonest. It was alleged that the accused uttered bad words and also slapped the deceased. The deceased could not bear the said insult and due to said reason, he was compelled to end his life. Consequently, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner/accused Balwan Singh under Section 306 IPC.

The petitioner’s Counsel contended that there were allegations that the deceased was charging extra money from the general public to provide treatment to cattle. In this regard, inhabitants of the village gave affidavits. When the Petitioner came to know about this, the petitioner reprimanded and further advised the deceased not to demand any bribe from the villagers who come to the hospital for treatment of their cattle.

The petitioner’s Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) and submitted that offence under Section 306 IPC requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

“It is also settled position of law that mere mention of the name of certain individual in the suicide note, stating therein that he is responsible for his death cannot ipso facto be the sole basis for putting to accused to face trial or for conviction under Section 306 IPC”, the Bench said.

The Bench was of the opinion that in case, the petitioner herein got complaints regarding working or corrupt practices adopted by the deceased, he should have reported the same to his seniors so as to proceed against the deceased in accordance with law. However, apparently, no such complaint in writing was received by the petitioner with regard to the working of the deceased, prior to the occurrence in question.

On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench observed that the petitioner used abusive language and also slapped the deceased, while reprimanding him and all this happened in the premises of the hospital during working hours on the day when the deceased committed thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on the same very day and left behind a suicide note.“Thus, there was positive action on the part of the petitioner proximate to the time of suicide, which prima facie led the deceased to commit suicide”, the Bench said.

It was further noticed that no material was available on the record that the deceased was frustrated or feeling depressed on account of work pressure or was facing some family problem. “Apparently, it appears that medical prescriptions Annexure P-4 to Annexure P-10 are not bearing name or signature of any person. Further, authenticity and relevance of the said documents is subject matter of trial”, it added.

The Bench also added that the petitioner cannot take any benefit of documents relating to transfer and re-transfer of the deceased, which happened more than 1 ½ year prior to the occurrence in question.

As per the Bench, it appears that sufficient material was available to proceed further against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The FIR was registered and the chargesheet was presented by the police on the basis of sufficient evidence. “This is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR”, it said while dismissing the petition.

Cause Title: Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHC:155664)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Ankur Malik

Respondents: AAG Karan Garg, Advocate P.S. Sullar

Click here to read/download Order