AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court; seeking quashing of case FIR No. 70 dated 20.11.2006 registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, under Section 306 IPC. The said FIR which has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-1 has been instituted at the instance of one Gurbax Kaur wife of Joginder Singh (deceased). A perusal of the FIR reveals that one Mohan Singh Lambardar along with Malkit Singh and present petitioners had borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 from Joginder Singh, husband of the complainant. It has been further alleged that the said amount was demanded by Joginder Singh on various occasions but Mohan Singh and others kept dilly- dallying. It has been further entailed in the FIR that a day prior to his death Joginder Singh had gone to the house of Mohan Singh and Malkit Singh for taking back his money who instead of returning the money insulted the complaint and pushed him out of their house. The said fact was disclosed to the complaint who was abroad by her husband on phone. It has also been alleged that daughter-in-law of the complaint recovered a written note from the pocket of her husband in which the deceased has stated that he has committed suicide because Mohan Singh and others including the present petitioner have not returned his money.

(2.) THE sole question of law which arises in the present petition is that even if the version which has been put forth by the complaint in the FIR is taken to be correct, whether the same will disclose the commission of any offence. It has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation entailed in the FIR do not spell out the necessary ingredients for the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC which provides punishment for abetment to suicide. As abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC, the question as to whether any abetment is made out or not will necessarily require reference to the said provision. For this reason, it would be apposite here to reproduce Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :

(3.) IT would be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid decision of this court was approved and upheld by the Supreme Court in Surender v. State of Haryana, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 288 : 2007(1) RAJ 122. The meaning, scope and ambit of instigation was also discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the court was pleased to observe as under :