A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court recently quashed summons issued against Dr GK Arora, former principal of BR Ambedkar College at Delhi University, and Ravinder Singh, a senior assistant, in connection with a 2013 suicide abetment case. The petitioners had filed a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and sought quashing the order of September 17, 2014, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, summoning them in an FIR lodged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
On September 30, 2013, a PCR call was received at around 5.20 pm at police station IP Estate with respect to self-immolation of a lady in front of Gate no 6 of the Delhi Secretariat. The lady was then taken to JPN Hospital. Sub Inspector Karan Pal Singh along with constable Ajeet reached the hospital and confirmed the self-imposed burn injuries of the lady. On the same day, a case under Section 309 of the IPC was registered.
During investigation, exhibits from the burn site, including a kerosene oil bottle, match box and a suicide note, dated September 9, 2013, addressed to the commissioner of police, Delhi, and Sonia Gandhi, chairperson of the Delhi Pradesh Congress, was recovered. The act of self-immolation was attributed to the mental and physical harassment meted out by Arora and Singh, who looks after the work in principal’s office at the College, and mental harassment by various aides of petitioner number one.
On October 1, 2023, sub inspector Singh and BL Meena, sub-divisional magistrate, Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi (SDM), recorded separate statements of the survivor, where she narrated her complaints to various authorities and attributed the cause of her attempt to suicide by self-immolation to the petitioners. The survivor (deceased) later succumbed to her burn injuries on October 7, 2013, and on the basis of the post-mortem report, Section 306 of the IPC was added in the FIR and investigation taken up. Thereafter, a report under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed. The respondent number 2 (husband of the deceased) filed a protest petition challenging the findings in the report before the metropolitan magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
On September 17, 2014, vide the impugned order, the metropolitan magistrate after considering both the closure report and the protest petition, summoned petitioner number 1 and 2 and observed that there is prima facie sufficient material to summon them.
The High Court observed that the main consideration for summoning the petitioners was the allegation made in the suicide note, dated September 30, 2013, as well as the statements (dying declarations), dated October 1, 2013, wherein as per the metropolitan magistrate, specific allegations were made against the petitioners with respect to the harassment meted out to the deceased, both mentally and physically. The Court also noted that the petitioners were summoned by the metropolitan magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
The issue before the High Court was whether in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made against the petitioners would amount to abetment of suicide under the provision of Section 306 of the IPC. The Court noted that the deceased was terminated from her services on March 13, 2012, and the date of her attempted suicide was on September 30, 2013. It said all the complaints that the deceased had referred to in her suicide note as well as the statements (dying declarations) had been enquired into and closed by various authorities, which have been brought on record by the charge sheet. In fact, the deceased herself in the suicide note stated that all the complaints have been closed on account of influence made by petitioner number 1, but the fact remains that those complaints had been closed after appropriate enquiries.
The Court further noted that after the death of the deceased, there were two other authorities apart from the Delhi Police, which conducted enquiries into her death: the National Commission for Women and BL Garg Commission, and the result of the enquiries were also in favour of the petitioners and have been brought on record in the charge sheet.
The Court observed that the tone and tenor of the suicide note reflects that the deceased basically blamed the system for not coming to her support on account of alleged influence by the principal of the College. The incidents which have been referred to in the suicide note are all prior to her dismissal from service. The deceased’s service was terminated on March 13, 2012, and the date of the attempted suicide was on September 30, 2013, but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners were in contact, in any manner, with the deceased post her termination and immediately before the attempted suicide. In fact, no overt or covert act(s) has been attributed to the petitioners which was proximate to the time of the attempt to suicide by the deceased.
The Court further observed that in this case, the metropolitan magistrate had based his prima facie satisfaction on the basis of the suicide note and the alleged dying declarations of the deceased without appreciating the findings of the aforesaid Committees as well as the fact that after her dismissal, there was no material on record to show that the deceased was ever contacted by the petitioners.
The Court said that even the statements (dying declarations) on which the metropolitan magistrate had relied upon pertain to the same allegations made by the deceased prior to her dismissal. The magistrate while passing the impugned order had not dealt with the issue as to how the contents of the suicide note would bring the case of the petitioners under Section 306 of the IPC, when the investigating officer had taken a specific stand that the allegations made by the deceased and the evidence collected do not make out a case under Section 306 of the IPC.
The Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat and another (in 2010) where the Supreme Court was dealing with a case seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 306 and 294(b) of the IPC, where the deceased was the employee of the appellant. In that case, the deceased had left a suicide note where he stated that his life had been ruined by the appellant’s style of functioning.
The Court noted that “in the case, as already mentioned hereinabove, all the complaints filed by the deceased were closed after due enquiry. The said complaints were dealt with by different statutory bodies which were not under the immediate control of the principal of the College. The grievance of the deceased in the suicide note was, in fact, just not against the petitioners, but also against other persons mentioned therein. The said note even blamed the chief minister of Delhi as well as vice-chancellor of Delhi University. The incident of attempted suicide has already been enquired into by the enquiry committee constituted by National Commission for Women and BL Garg Commission, apart from the charge sheet in which the petitioners stand exonerated,” the Court observed. Accordingly, it set aside the summoning order by the trial court and allowed the petition.
Last month, the Supreme Court had clarified the conditions under which the official superiors can be held liable for the abetment of a junior official’s suicide. The Court was hearing the case of a salesman who died by suicide after alleged harassment from senior officers in his company. The division bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra had quashed the case against the accused officers, overruling a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in March 2017. The Court stated that for Section 306 of IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The Court further stated that police and the courts should avoid “unnecessary prosecutions” in cases of abetment of suicide stemming from the workplace.
—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau