Delhi High Court: The petitions were filed seeking to quash the order dated 17-09-2014 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi summoning the petitioners in FIR filed under Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS IP Estate. Amit Sharma, J., allowed the present petitions and set aside the summoning order as the allegations did not meet the threshold required to invoke the provisions of Section 306 IPC.
The background relates the tragic suicide of a former employee (deceased), who had previously worked at the B.R. Ambedkar College, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi (BRAC), the college where the petitioners’ held positions of authority. After a disciplinary inquiry that concluded with the termination of the deceased’s employment on 13-03-2012, she exhibited signs of distress, reportedly threatening to take her life as noted in a letter dated 02-04-2013, from Proctor of the University of Delhi. This letter was addressed to various authorities, including the DCP of North-East and the SHO of Bhajanpura, indicating that the deceased had expressed suicidal intentions subsequent to her termination. The attempted suicide occurred on 13-09-2013, over a year and a half after her dismissal. The evidence presented indicated no ongoing communication or interaction between the petitioners and the deceased in the period leading up to her suicide.
The petition was primarily instigated by the deceased’s family’s allegations against the petitioners, who were accused of contributing to her mental distress and subsequent suicide through harassment and misconduct during her employment. It was claimed that prior to her termination, the deceased had lodged a complaint against the second petitioner, alleging inappropriate conduct. However, inquiries conducted by the university and police deemed these allegations to be unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the deceased was involved in a contentious matrimonial dispute with her husband, the second respondent, further complicating the narrative of her state of mind.
During the proceedings, the Counsel for the respondents asserted a direct link between the petitioners’ actions and the deceased’s attempted suicide, referencing witness statements from two college employees who reported experiencing backlash after supporting the deceased during her employment. They cited memos issued close to the date of the suicide as evidence of the petitioners’ ongoing harassment. However, the Court found these memos insufficient to establish a causal relationship between the petitioners’ conduct and the deceased’s tragic decision, stating that the memos could not be construed as incitement under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC).
The Trial Court’s decision to proceed despite a closure report filed by the investigating officer was scrutinized. The closure report indicated that the investigation had concluded without sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims against the petitioners, a fact that was not duly considered in the magistrate’s decision to rely on the contents of the suicide note and alleged dying declarations of the deceased. The Court underscored the importance of demonstrating the requisite mens rea, an intention to incite the suicide on the part of the petitioners, which was notably absent.
The Court cited precedents establishing that mere harsh decisions made in an official capacity do not amount to incitement unless there is clear evidence of intent to push an individual towards suicide. The judgments referenced indicated that the mere existence of a grudge or complaints regarding a superior’s behavior does not meet the threshold for establishing criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The Court emphasized that personal grievances against employers or superiors, unless accompanied by unequivocal evidence of intent to instigate suicide, do not warrant criminal proceedings.
Thus, the Court concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of abetment of suicide against the petitioners reiterating the principle that the prosecution must demonstrate a clear connection between the petitioners’ actions and the deceased’s state of mind at the time of her suicide, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the Court held that the FIR should be quashed, recognizing the significant implications of subjecting individuals to criminal prosecution based on tenuous connections or unsubstantiated claims.
[Dr G K Arora v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7535, decided on 29-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand, Mr. Jai Batra, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Mr. Sandesh Kumar, Ms. Sakshi and Ms. Atika Singh, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State. SI Ajay Tomar, PS IP Estate. Ms. Stuti Gupta, Advocate for R-2.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
