NARINDER SINGH ALIAS BABLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER frustration in love on the part of a woman /young girl can be equated with abetment as required under Section 306 IPC and as defined under Section 107 IPC is the primary question which has to be answered in the present petition filed by Narinder Singh, a young boy of 20 years and a student who has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for the quashment of the chargesheet as well as other proceedings against him under FIR No. 334 dated 7. 10. 1994, Police Station Jagadhri City under Section 306 IPC in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri.

(2.) THE gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner are that he was in affair with a girl by the name of Manjeet Kaur and the latter could not become successful in marrying herself with the petitioner which frustration ultimately led to the commission of suicide on the part of the girl. On these allegations the criminal case under Section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioner. During the course of investigation certain letters allegedly written by the deceased have been taken by the investigating officer indicating a love affair of the deceased with the petitioner and her utmost faith in the petitioner that he would marry her. The deceased unfortunately could not succeed in her desire and could not marry him and she committed suicide by taking poisonous substance.

(3.) A combined reading of provisions of Sections 306 and 107 IPC clearly comes to this that mere must be a direct nexus between effect of abetment and the abetment itself. There is not an iota of evidence collected by the investigation officer that petitioner Narinder Singh at any point of time instigated the deceased to commit suicide in the failure of their desire of maturity of their relationship. The language and the letters quoted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation indicate that the deceased and the petitioner were two intimate souls and perhaps at one point of time the petitioner might have promised with the deceased for the marriage but at no point of time the petitioner ever made representation to the deceased that in the failure of their affair maturing into marriage, the deceased would punish herself by adopting extreme steps. In such a situation, it cannot be said even remotely that the petitioner ever abeted or tried to abet the deceased in order to take her valuable life. If the deceased out of her poor frustration had adopted and abeted to finish herself by resorting to the method unapproved by the Society no blame can be given to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be dragged to prosecution.