ROOP KISHORE MADAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. (Main) 4184/2000 is a petition wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 1088/96, Police Station, Srinivaspuri, under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and proceedings emanating therefrom. The facts of this case, as stated in the FIR, stem from the statement of Mrs. Linda Brady, resident of 179-C, Pocket-C, Sid- hartha Extension, New Delhi who stated that she was residing at above address and doing her own publication business. On 18.10.96 she left her house at about 10.00 0' clock by Laxi for work. Her daughter, Sharon Brady, was alone in house. Her Son, Trevor had left for his work. She returned back to her house around 10.30 p.m. and found her daughter was lying dead on bed. She talked to her daughter on phone around 3.30 p.m. She was normal. A suicide note was found which had been handed over by her son, Trevor to the police. Trevor had told her that when he returned around 8.00 p.m. the house was locked. There were three keys of the house one was with her, second was with her son and the other was with her daughter. The police had come to the spot. She requested to do the needful. It is the case of the petitioner that this matter had come up before this Court earlier when this Court had the opportunity to deal with the matter in respect of bail and it appears that by an elaborate order dated 27.11.1996, the learned Judge had made the following observations:

(2.) On the basis of the suicide note, case under Section 304 was registered by the police and apprehending arrest on the basis of the said FIR, the petitioner filed this petition for being admitted to anticipatory bail.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no question of the petitioner having abetted the commission of suicide as he had neither instigated the deceased to commit suicide nor he had made a wilful misrepresentation of any fact which might have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is the contention of Mr. Mathur that even assuming that the petitioner had promised to marry the deceased, he could not marry her because he was already married and the deceased was aware of his earlier marriage. He, therefore, submits that it is a case of frustration in life and not an abetment and he cannot be arrested only because the deceased in frustration has committed suicide.