SATYANARAYAN AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Sub -Divisional Officer of Minor Irrigation, Patnagarh, has moved this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance taken by learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh under Section 306, I.P.C. vide order dated 23.06.2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 500 of 2007.

(2.) ONE Giri Rout was working as a Peon in the petitioner's office at Patnagarh. He was irregular in his duty and was not attending the office regularly owing to his ill health for quite sometime. For such absence on the part of said Giri Rout in the office, there was deduction of his salary on account of unauthorized absence. As the aforesaid Giri Rout was receiving a low salary, he was sustaining his family by taking loan from outside. He was unhappy with the situation and behaviour of the petitioner, who is a superior officer. He committed suicide on 08.11.2007. Patnagarh U.D. Case No.38 dated 08.11.2007 was initiated and enquiry was taken up. In course of enquiry, police could find a suicidal note written by said Giri Rout describing his financial condition and loan taken from outside and his unhappiness with the behaviour of the petitioner. On the basis of such suicidal note, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to jail custody. Subsequently he was released on bail. On filing of charge -sheet under Section 306, I.P.C., learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh had taken cognizance under Section 306, I.P.C. obliging the petitioner to move this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance.

(3.) IN course of enquiry in the U.D. Case, the I.O. seized a suicide note written by deceased Giri Rout on production by the relatives of the deceased. From the suicide note, as revealed from the F.I.R., it came to light that deceased Giri Rout was working as a Peon in the office of the present petitioner since long; he was quite irregular in attending to his usual office work owing to his ill -health and the present petitioner was deliberately abusing the deceased for his prolonged illness and absence in duty, for which the deceased was quite unhappy. It is further alleged in the said suicidal note that the petitioner himself was not regular in attending the office and though other employees like Satrughna Bhoi and Giri Sankar Kar were also not attending the office regularly, the petitioner was not scolding them or not taking any action against them. It is also alleged in the suicide note that due to paucity of funds the petitioner had taken loans from outside to sustain his family by borrowing money from different persons of the locality. On the basis of such suicide note, the I.O. in the F.I.R. has come to a conclusion that the deceased committed suicide being dissatisfied with the unpleasant behaviour of the present petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 47 OCR 376has taken into consideration the provision of Sections 306 and 107, I.P.C. and in paragraph -28 of the judgment held thus : -