PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                  [2024] 3 S.C.R. 157 : 2024 INSC 172

              Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra
                                 v.
                      The State of U.P. & Anr.
                   (Criminal Appeal No.(s). 1397 of 2024)
                                  05 March 2024
                [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

                             Issue for Consideration
       High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused
       appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal
       case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule
       Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

                                     Headnotes
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide –
       Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary
       ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by
       the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and
       bothered by the style of functioning of the appellant-District
       Saving Officer and of the Chief Development Officer and
       thus, was left with no option but to end his life, and was also
       bothered by the pressure of working in two districts – Criminal
       proceedings against the appellant for the offences punishable
       u/s. 306 and s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Application by the
       appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings –
       Rejected by the High Court – Justification:
       Held: Prosecution of the appellant for the offence u/s.3(2)(v) of
       the SC/ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted since from the
       admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary ingredients
       of the offence u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out –
       Prosecution case is entirely based on the suicide note left behind
       by the victim before committing suicide – On a minute perusal of the
       suicide note, the contents thereof do not indicate any act or omission
       on the part of the appellant which could make him responsible for
       abetment as defined u/s. 107 – Suicide note clearly shows that
       the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and
       was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his
       official duties – Necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment
       to commit suicide are not made out from the chargesheet – Thus,
       allowing prosecution of the appellant is grossly illegal for the offences
* Author
158                                                               [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       punishable u/s.306 and s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamounts to
       gross abuse of process to law – Also, investigating agency itself
       proposed a closure report in the matter after conducting thorough
       investigation – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court
       and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant in the
       criminal case pending, quashed and set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 22-25]

                                 Case Law Cited
            Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra,
            [2000] 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 3 SCC 557; Netai Dutta v.
            State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659; M. Mohan v. State
            represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
            [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626 – referred to.
                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes
       (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
                                List of Keywords
       Abetment of suicide; Suicide; Suicide note; Caste; Act or omission;
       Frustrated on account of work pressure.
                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1397
       of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2022 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No.12691 of 2015
                            Appearances for Parties
       Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., Danish Zubair Khan, Ajeet Pandey, Dr.
       Lokendra Malik, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Ankit Goel, Ram Shiromani Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.
                   Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment
       Mehta, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th July, 2022
       passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                          159

     Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


       Criminal Misc. Application No. 12691 of 2015 filed by the accused
       appellant herein under Section 482 of Court of Criminal Procedure,
       1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’).
3.     By way of the said application, the accused appellant sought
       quashing of proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 6476 of 2005
       pending against him in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
       Farrukhabad for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the
       Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’)
       and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
       Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter being referred
       to as ‘SC/ST Act’).
4.     The case aforesaid came to be registered on the basis of a charge-
       sheet filed by the investigating agency pursuant to investigation of
       C.C. No. 516/2002 P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad.
5.     The accused appellant herein was working as the District Savings
       Officer in Kannauj District. It is alleged that one Data Ram(deceased),
       posted as Senior Clerk, Child Welfare Board, Fatehgarh, committed
       suicide on 3rd October, 2002 by consuming a poisonous substance
       in his own house. The deceased wrote a suicide note before ending
       his life.
6.     The dead body of the Data Ram was recovered lying in his house, i.e.
       Mohalla Gwal Toli, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad. FIR No. 249/2002
       came to be registered at P.S. Kotwali, Fatehgarh on the basis of the
       suicide note left behind by the deceased for the offences punishable
       under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
7.     The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed a
       closure report. Later on, investigation was re-opened and Charge-
       sheet No. 253 of 2002 came to be filed against the accused appellant
       for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)
       (v) of the SC/ST Act.
8.     The suicide note written by the deceased which forms the basis of
       the FIR and the charge-sheet is reproduced hereinbelow for the
       sake of ready reference: -
            “The learned District Magistrate
            It is hereby informed that on 1.10.2002 in night time at
            8 ‘O’ Clock, the District Savings Officer Kannauj Shri
160                                                     [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Prabhat Mishra made telephonic call to me and even
       got my conversations done from Chief Development
       Officer, Kannauj and told that you come to Kannauj on
       2.10.2002 in morning at 11 O’ Clock and meet me and
       some information has to be prepared. On 2.10.2002, at
       10 O’Clock, I went to District Social Welfare Officer for
       obtaining permission to go to Kannauj, then he directed
       me to not go to Kannauj. When, it has already been written
       to the District Savings Officer that you call your record,
       then, you do not need to go there. Thereafter, I returning
       back to the Office, started performing official work. In noon
       time at 12.30 O’ Clock, the Chief Development Officer,
       gave me information on telephone that you leave all your
       work and go to Kannauj and meet the learned District
       Magistrate. I immediately reached Kannauj by Scooter,
       where, at 2:15 O’ Clock, I went the bungalow of District
       Magistrate, where, it was told that the learned District
       Magistrate has departed and you please meet the District
       Savings Officer Prabhat Mishra, then, I went to Shri
       Mishra at 2:45 O’ Clock, then, he continued sitting me in
       his Office till 5:30 O’ Clock and told me that the learned
       District Magistrate has not sit till now and we will go from
       here at 5 O’clock. At 5:30 O’ Clock, Shri Mishra had taken
       me to the Chief Development Officer Shri Shashidhar
       Dwivedi. Conversation of Shri Mishra had already taken
       place previously with CDO Sahab. The CDO Sahab
       asked that why the pension of 327 widows has not been
       distributed yet, then I replied that due to non-availability
       of their bank accounts, it could not have been distributed.
       On this, he, while using very indecent words, used odd
       words against me very much and that I am unable to give
       full particulars of above. He told me that even after my
       call, you did not come to me, have you become a very big
       governor. Further says that DM Sahab has refused to go
       there and thereat, he keeps filling the Officers a lot and
       does not want to perform work and even everything was
       told about Suspension and other things. Thereafter, Shri
       Mishra had taken me at the residence of learned District
       Magistrate from where, I was called at 7:30 O’clock. After
       making me aware about the information, the respected
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                             161

     Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


            sir asked me reason for not coming to Kannauj, then, I
            made him aware about the situation.
            Sir, it is requested that I, even after the fact that the post
            of District Probation Officer is lying vacant, am executing,
            and discharging my duties diligently with honesty and full
            devotion. Due to non-availability of my Officers in two
            districts, now, it is beyond my control to perform work with
            two different Officers. Sir, it was told by you that to not
            go to Kannauj and discharge your duty of Farrukhabad
            smoothly, but, I was suddenly given order to go to Kannauj
            that you leave all the work and come to Kannauj and then,
            I have already sent the information on 1.10.2002, to the
            District Economics and Statistics Officer, Kannauj, where
            it was available, but, I was called only for insulting me.
            Even I also understand this fact that during my lifetime,
            duties of both the Districts will not be discharged and I
            will continuously grinding in between two Officers equally.
            So, for avoiding from the torture of Shri Prabhat Mishra
            and Shri Shashidhar Dwivedi, Chief Development Officer,
            I am sacrificing my life, so that, I, while visiting Kannauj,
            may not be compelled to be harassed till now, I have
            not been insulted and harassed by any learned District
            Magistrate/ Chief Development Officer, in this manner
            and all the Officers have appreciated my duties and work.
            With touching feet with respect, please forgive me. With
            best regards.”
9.     It is not in dispute that the aforesaid suicide note is the only foundation
       of the charge-sheet filed against the accused appellant. The accused
       appellant approached the High Court by filing an application under
       Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings
       of the criminal case registered against him. The said application
       was rejected vide order dated 26th July 2022 which is challenged
       in this appeal.
10. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused
    appellant contended that even if the allegations as set out in the suicide
    note are taken to be true on their face value, the same do not constitute
    the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and hence, it is a fit
    case wherein the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed.
162                                                       [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


11. Learned senior counsel contended that from the admitted allegations
    as set out in the aforesaid suicide note (supra), no inference can
    be drawn that the appellant in any manner, instigated or abetted
    the deceased to commit suicide. At best, what can be inferred from
    the suicide note (supra) is that the deceased was frustrated and
    bothered by the style of functioning of the appellant herein and of
    Shashidhar Dwivedi, CDO, and thus he felt that he was left with no
    option but to end his life. He also seems to have been bothered by
    the pressure of working in two districts and took the extreme step
    of ending his life being unable to withstand the pressure.
12. Learned senior counsel further urged that all proceedings sought
    to be taken against the appellant as a consequence of the charge
    sheet, deserve to be quashed as the same amount to an abuse of
    process of the Court.
13. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Goel, learned standing counsel for the State
    of Uttar Pradesh has opposed the submissions advanced by the
    learned senior counsel representing the accused appellant.
14. Learned counsel for the State urged that the appellant and Shashidar
    Dwivedi, CDO being the superior officers of the deceased, harassed
    and humiliated him to such an extent that he was left with no
    option but to end his life. The allegations set out in the suicide note
    constitute the necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide.
    Thus, it is not a fit case warranting interference in the well-reasoned
    order passed by the High Court refusing to interfere and quash the
    proceedings of the criminal case registered against the appellant.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
16. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the prosecution of
    the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/
    ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted because it is nowhere the
    case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence
    under IPC was committed by the appellant upon the deceased on
    the basis of his caste.
17. This Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v.
    State of Maharashtra1 considered this issue and held as under:-


1   [2000] 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 3 SCC 557
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                               163

    Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


             “9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not
             being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
             Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860
             punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
             more against a person or property on the ground that such
             person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
             Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
             punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the
             present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that
             the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on
             the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled
             Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of
             Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim
             should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or
             a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal
             Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such
             a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
             Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under
             Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter,
             we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed
             the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
             conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court
             as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.”
18. Thus, from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary
    ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are
    not made out so as to justify prosecution of the accused appellant
    for the said offence.
19. The parameters required to bring an act or omission by the person
    charged within the purview of the offence under Section 306 IPC
    have been elaborated by this Court time and again and a few of
    these judgments are quoted below for ready reference.
20. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. 2 in almost similar
    circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings sought to be
    taken against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The relevant
    observations from the said judgment are reproduced as under:-


2    (2005) 2 SCC 659
164                                                     [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       “4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s M.L.
       Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of his employment,
       he had been posted at various worksites of the Company
       and on 11-9-1999 he was transferred to the worksite of
       the Company’s stores located at 160, B.L. Saha Road,
       Kolkata. It seems that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab
       Kumar Nag did not join duty and after a period of about two
       years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his own
       hand wherein he expressed his grievance of stagnancy of
       salary and also alleged that he was a victim of unfortunate
       circumstances. The Company accepted his resignation
       with immediate effect. On 16-2-2001, a dead body was
       found at the railway tracks near Ballygunge Railway Station
       and it was revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar
       Nag. His brother went to the office where Pranab Kumar
       Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body of
       Pranab Kumar Nag was released to his brother after the
       post-mortem examination on 19-2-2001. After a period
       of two months, a complaint was lodged before the police
       post on the basis of a suicide note allegedly recovered
       from the dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag. Based on the
       complaint, a case was registered against the appellant
       and some others. A translated copy of the suicide note is
       produced before us by the appellant. We have carefully
       read the alleged suicide note. The substance of this
       suicide note is that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag alleged
       that appellant Netai Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee
       engaged him in several wrongdoings (he has shown as a
       type of torture) and at the end of the letter, a reference is
       also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and Netai Dutta alleging
       that he reported certain incidents to them. A reading of
       the letter would show that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag
       was not very much satisfied with the working conditions
       in the office. In the letter he has stated that he had to be
       at the workplace sometimes throughout the day and night
       and he had to remain in the company of some drivers who
       had been sometimes in drunken condition at about one
       o’clock or two o’clock in the night. It is also alleged that
       the drivers who had been present at the workplace had
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                           165

  Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


           been having non-vegetarian food. He also complained that
           he had to work even on Sundays. He further stated that
           one day he could leave the workplace at 8 o’clock in the
           evening and all the restaurants were closed and that he
           reported the matter to the present appellant.
           5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide
           note that the present appellant had caused any harm to
           him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying
           salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the
           deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working
           conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed
           that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never
           joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and
           had absented himself for a period of two years and that
           the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said
           that the present appellant had in any way instigated the
           deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the
           suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section
           306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the
           commission of the crime. The parameters of “abetment”
           have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code,
           1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing
           of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or
           engages with one or more other person or persons in any
           conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
           omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or
           the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal
           omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any
           wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material
           fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within
           the contours of “abetment”.
           6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
           appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act
           or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to
           have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally
           aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
           committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the
           appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy,
166                                                            [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


            which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission
            of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
            7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation
            made by the complainant that the appellant herein in
            any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag.
            The case registered against the appellant is without any
            factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide
            note do not in any way make out the offence against the
            appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant
            would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
            without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single
            Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information
            report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a
            cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to
            proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is
            a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section
            482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked.
            We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the
            appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.”
21. In the case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy
    Superintendent of Police3, this Court held as below:-
         “36. We would like to deal with the concept of “abetment”.
         Section 306 of the Code deals with “abetment of suicide” which
         reads as under:
            “306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits
            suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
            shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
            for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
            be liable to fine.
         37. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal
         Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and
         requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means
         “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person
         committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the
         means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.


3   [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            167

  Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


        38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence
        considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach
        of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
        39. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under Section 107
        of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107,
        which reads as under:
           “107.Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of
           a thing, who—
           First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
           Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or
           persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
           an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
           conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
           Thirdly.—Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission,
           the doing of that thing.”
           Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section
           107 reads as under:
           Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time
           of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
           facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
           the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
        40. The learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another
        judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
        [(2001) 9 SCC 618], in which a three- Judge Bench of this Court
        had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a
        dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband
        uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever
        you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar
        committed suicide.
        41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9
        SCC 618 has examined different shades of the meaning of
        “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
           “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
           or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
           instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
168                                                        [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


         must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
         must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
         consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
         consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
         present one is not a case where the accused had by his
         acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
         created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
         no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
         instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
         fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
         to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
         In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
         there is no evidence and material available on record
         wherefrom an inference of the appellantaccused having
         abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant’s
         wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
       42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], this
       Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court should
       be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances
       of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
       purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim
       had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
       If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was
       hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
       domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim
       belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were
       not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual
       in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the
       Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
       accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
       be found guilty.
       43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT
       of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] had an occasion to deal with this
       aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning
       of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that
       there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
       doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern
       is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                        169

  Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


        self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to
        lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.
        Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
        circumstances.
        44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
        or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
        positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
        committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
        45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
        decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
        under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
        commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
        which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
        this act must have been intended to push the deceased into
        such a position that he/she committed suicide.
        46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2010) 10
        SCC 361] this Court has held that when prima facie no case
        is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought
        to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and
        quashed the complaint.
        47. In a recent judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan Singh
        v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628], this Court quashed
        the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the
        allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that
        the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
        48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation,
        there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is
        also no proximate link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when
        the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with
        the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18-1-2005.
        Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The
        deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
        discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In
        a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon.
        Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to
        person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and
        self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same
170                                                        [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


       situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had
       taken place in the family. But the question that remains to be
       answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that
       unfortunate incident in any manner?
       49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and
       the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely
       arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotely
       connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may
       be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the
       husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3)
       are pending adjudication.
       ******
       62. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
       this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant
       provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter
       XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
       series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
       power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
       inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, gave the following
       categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
       could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
       the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this
       Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down
       any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
       inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
       list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
       exercised : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
         “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
              report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
              their face value and accepted in their entirety do
              not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
              a case against the accused.
         (2)    Where the allegations in the first information report
                and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
                do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
                investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
                of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
                within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            171

  Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


           (3)   Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
                 or complaint and the evidence collected in support
                 of the same do not disclose the commission of any
                 offence and make out a case against the accused.
           (4)   Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
                 a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
                 cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
                 a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
                 contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
           (5)   Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
                 are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
                 basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
                 a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
                 proceeding against the accused.
           (6)   Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
                 of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
                 (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
                 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/
                 or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
                 the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for
                 the grievance of the aggrieved party.
           (7)   Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
                 with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
                 maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
                 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
                 to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
        *****
        65. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
        Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122] observed thus : (SCC p.
        128, para 8)
           “8. ... It would be an abuse of process of the court to
           allow any action which would result in injustice and
           prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers,
           court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds
           that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
           process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
           otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence
172                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine
          the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be
          quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
          assess what the complainant has alleged and whether
          any offence is made out even if the allegations are
          accepted in toto.”
          *****
        68. In the light of the settled legal position, in our considered
        opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition
        filed by the appellants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the
        charges under Section 306 IPC against them. The High Court
        ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the appellants
        who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section
        306 IPC should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles
        of a criminal trial. As a result, the charges under Section 306
        IPC against the appellants are quashed.”
22. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case is entirely based on
    the suicide note left behind by the deceased before committing
    suicide. On a minute perusal of the suicide note, we do not find that
    the contents thereof indicate any act or omission on the part of the
    accused appellant which could make him responsible for abetment
    as defined under Section 107 IPC.
23. We have minutely perused the suicide note (reproduced supra)
    which clearly shows that the deceased was frustrated on account
    of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors
    unconnected to his official duties. He was also feeling the pressure
    of working in two different districts. However, such apprehensions
    expressed in the suicide note, by no stretch of imagination, can be
    considered sufficient to attribute to the appellant, an act or omission
    constituting the elements of abetment to commit suicide. The facts
    of the case at hand are almost identical to the case of Netai Dutta
    (supra). Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the necessary
    ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are not
    made out from the chargesheet and hence allowing prosecution
    of the appellant is grossly illegal for the offences punishable under
    Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamounts
    to gross abuse of process to law.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                           173

  Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P. & Anr.


24. It may be noted that in the first instance, the investigating agency itself
    proposed a closure report in the matter after conducting thorough
    investigation. In this background, we are of the opinion that there
    do not exist any justifiable ground so as to permit the prosecution
    of the appellant for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section
    3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
25. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court and all
    proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant in the criminal
    case pending for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and
    Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are hereby quashed and set aside.
26. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                      Result of the case:
                                                               Appeal allowed.