BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by petitioner/accused seeking quashing of FIR No.172 dtd. 14/10/2015 Annexure P-1 registered under Sec. 306 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Rajound, District Kaithal.

(2.) FIR in this case was registered on the basis of statement made by Manoj Kumar, resident of Karoda, Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal wherein he is stated that his elder brother Joginder Singh was working as a class IV employee in Animal Husbandry Department and was posted in veterinary hospital in village Rohera. On 14/10/2015, he received telephonic message that his brother Joginder Singh committed suicide by hanging from a fan in a room of aforesaid hospital. On receiving the message, he went to veterinary hospital Rohera and on reaching there, he found that dead body of his brother Joginder Singh was lying on a floor inside the room. He checked the dead body which resulted into recovery of suicide note from the pocket of trouser of the deceased. He read the suicide note wherein it was written that on that day Balwan Singh (accused) who was posted as a Veterinary Life Stock Development Assistant (in short 'VLDA') in government veterinary hospital, Rohera had insulted the deceased and called him dishonest and uttered bad words and also gave a slap on his face. The deceased could not bear the said insult and due to said reason, he was compelled to end his life. The complainant also produced the said suicide note before the police. Consequently, FIR Annexure P-1 was registered against petitioner/accused Balwan Singh under Sec. 306 IPC.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that the petitioner was posted as VLDA, in veterinary hospital, Rohera. The deceased was working under the petitioner. 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 and two of the said affidavits are Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3. The deceased also used to issue medical prescriptions without having any authority to do so. The copies of such unauthorized medical prescriptions issued by the deceased are Annexure P-6 to Annexure P-10. The matter was also reported to his senior namely petitioner Balwan Singh prior to the alleged occurrence. On this, 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 counsel for the petitioner has further argued that earlier the deceased was transferred to some other place as is evident from Annexure P-12 but he made request and was re- transferred to veterinary hospital Rohera as is apparent from Annexure P-13. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the deceased remained working with the petitioner for last 12 years. In case, the deceased was ill-treated by the petitioner then there was no occasion for the deceased to get himself re-transferred to veterinary hospital, Rohera. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR and alleged suicide note are taken to be correct on their face value, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has committed any offence much less offence under Sec. 306 IPC. The counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (1) SCC 750, has submitted that offence under Sec. 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. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 207 wherein it was held that in so far as Sec. 306 IPC is concerned, merely because a person had a grudge against his senior official and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Sec. 306 IPC. It should be seen whether the accused intended or engineered the suicide by his acts and words. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 66 wherein charge under Sec. 306 IPC was dropped against the accused and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction merely on the basis of allegations of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in law, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. The act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in CRM-M-8661-2016 titled Mukesh Kher Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 22/7/2019, CRR-669-2018 titled Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 6/9/2018 and CRM-M-41891-2023 titled Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 6/5/2024.