AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein has prayed that the case FIR No. 252/2017 registered at Police Station Jalupura, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence
under Section 306 IPC be quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings. It is further prayed that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in the
court of competent jurisdiction arising out of impugned FIR be also quashed as from bald allegations which have emerged in the entire investigation
and particularly in the suicide note, no offence of abetment to suicide, is made out.
Kailash Gurjar son of Nand Lal Gurjar on the intervening night of 16.9.2017 and 17.9.2017 committed suicide at Room No. 106 of Hotel Gaurav,
Banasthali Marg, Jaipur. The police party reached at the spot and found that Kailash Gurjar had hanged himself by putting a rope around his neck with
the fan hook affixed in the hotel room. A ligature mark was found on the dead body. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted and as per opinion of
the doctor, the cause of death was ante mortem hanging, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The police party recovered a suicide note from the spot. The said suicide note is part of the challan filed by the police. In the suicide note, Kailash
Gurjar stated that nine person namely Shishupal, Bhauri Devi, Raj Kumar, Vijendra, Mukesh, Suresh, Rajendra Bhardwaj, Laxman Tanwar son of
Late Moolchand, Munni Devi conspired together and spoiled his life. He stated that he purchased a house from Bhauri Devi after making payment of
entire sale consideration. He had also purchased one room inside the house from Bhauri Devi. He further stated that beside that room he had also
purchased another room from Raj Kumar after making full payment. Thereafter he made two rooms into one room. It is further stated that Rajendra,
Moolchand, Raj Kumar, Bhauri Devi, Shishupal, Vijendra, Mukesh, Suresh, Munni Devi conspired together. In the suicide note it was further stated
that all the accused deceived him. Rajendra gave him a cheque of Rs. 28 Lakhs and asked him to encash the said cheque from the bank account at
Dausa. He further stated that in lieu thereof, he was made to issue two blank cheques. The deceased further stated in the suicide note that he
withdrew amount of Rs.28 Lakhs from the bank account of Rajendra accused petitioner and handed over the same to him (accused petitioner) but
accused had not returned the blank cheques issued by him. Thereafter, he started harassing the deceased.
I have heard Mr. G.P. Sharma counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Kaushik counsel for the complainant and Mr. Prakash Thakuriya learned
Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment Annexure-2 and 3 passed by the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dausa District Dausa to contend that deceased had issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 28 Lakhs and Rs. 9 Lakhs respectively.
The said cheques had bounced and consequently, petitioner filed two separate complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Vide
judgment Annexure-2 and Annexure-3, both dated 20.5.2014 deceased was convicted for offence under Section 138 NI Act. Vide Annexure-2 dated
20.5.2014, the deceased Kailash Gurjar was sentenced to undergo two years SI and to pay a fine Rs. 40 Lakhs, in default thereof to undergo two
months SI. Vide Annexure-3, the deceased Kailash Gurjar was sentenced to undergo one year SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 15 Lakhs, in default thereof
to undergo one month SI.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that aggrieved against the same, deceased Kailash Gurjar had filed two appeals in the
court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. In the said two appeals, vide Annexure-4, a joint compromise was presented before the appellate court.
The contents of the application stating terms of compromise, reads as under:-
“lsok esa izkFkZuk i= fuEufyf[kr izLrqr gS%&
1- ;g gS fd vihy la- 45@14 muokuh dSyk'k cuke jktsUnz o vihy la- 44@14 muokuh dSyk'k cuke jktsUnz nksuksa vihyksa dh jkf'k dk vfiyk.V o
jsLiksMs.V ds e/; 4800000@&:- v{kjs vMrkyhl yk[k #i, esa jkthukek gks x;k gSA vihyk.V us mDr jk'kh esa ls 16]50]000@&:- vkt fnu jsLiksMsUV
jktsUnz dks udn vnk dj fn, gS 'ks""k jk'kh 3150000@&:- v{kjs bdRrhl yk[k ipkl gtkj :i, fnukad 22@12@16 dks vihyk.V jsLiksMs.V dks vnk dj nsxk rFkk
mDr jk'kh vnk djus ds ckn mDr nksuksa vihyksa esa jkthukek is'k djds nksuksa i{k QSlyk djok ysaxsA ;fn 22@12@16 dks vihyk.V 'ks""k jk'kh vnk ugh
djrk gS rks vihyksa esa cgl dj ysaxs o mDr 16]50]000@&:- tqekZus esa 'kkfey le>k tkosxkAâ€
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on 20.7.2017, in terms of the compromise, deceased Kailash Gurjar handed over Demand
Draft amounting to Rs. 9 Lakhs and on joint request, the case was adjourned to 7.9.2017. On 7.9.2017, since the payment was not made, appeals
were adjourned for 6.10.2017. It is stated that in between 7.9.2017 and 6.10.2017, two dates fixed before the appellate court, since deceased could not
arrange for the amount in terms of the compromise, he committed suicide on the intervening night of 16.9.2017 and 17.9.2017.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was well within his rights to file two complaints for the offence
under Section 138 NI Act, as the cheques issued by the deceased Kailash Gurjar have bounced. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the version given by the petitioner was found truthful by competent court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgments Annexures-2 and
3, respectively. It is further contended that the version given in the suicide note was never projected before the court below who convicted and
sentenced the deceased Kailash Gurjar. It is further contended that it is undeniable fact that a joint compromise was presented by the petitioner and
the deceased before the appellate court and in terms of the compromise deceased Kailash Gurjar had paid Rs.16,50,000- in two installments but he
could not pay the remaining amount on 7.9.2017 and the case was adjourned to 6.10.2017 and in between, deceased Kailash Gurjar could not arrange
for funds and had committed suicide. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held liable for offence of abetment to suicide, as petitioner resorted to lawful
course for redressal of grievance.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had reserved the judgment on 9.5.2018. A perusal of the record reveals that besides the
petitioner, eight other persons were named as accused in suicide note.
SHO, Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur (North) has filed the status report wherein he stated as under:-
“izdj.k gktk esa vc rd dk vuqla/kku eqdnek eqLrxhl o xokgksa ds c;ku eqLrxhl eqdnek }kjk fn;s x;s nLrkost e`rd }kjk NksMk x;k lqlkbZM uksV ?
kVUkk LFky dk uD'kk ekSdk lqlkbZM uksV esa fy[ks x;s O;fDr;ksa ls dh xbZ iwNrkN rFkk vkjksihx.kksa }kjk fn;s x;s nLrkost dks 'kkfey i=koyh
fd;k x;kA izdj.k gktk esa rQrhl ls ik;k x;k gS fd jktdqekj xqtZj us viuh ekrkth HkkSajhnsoh ds uke dk edku ch&38 f'koiqjh dkWyksuh ,;jiksVZ ds lkeus
cq)flagiqjk lkaxkusj t;iqj o esgUnh dk pkSd esa cuh nks nqdkuksa dks Jh jktdqekj xqtZj us Jh dSyk'k xqtZj dks tfj;s jftLVªh }kjk cspku dj fn;k rFkk
jftLVªh;ksa ij Jherh Hkksjh nsoh dks yksu ysus ds cgkus jftLVªh;ksa ds ckjs esa fcuk crk;s viuh ekrkth HkkSjhnsoh ds vaxqBk fu'kkuh yxok nh
rFkk yele :i;s Hkh izkIr dj fy;s rFkk edku vkSj nqdkuksa dk dCtk dSyk'k pUn xqtZj dks lEHkyk fn;k Fkk mlds ckn esgUnh dk pkSd esa cuh
nqdkuksa ds fy, dSyk'k pUn xqtZj dks dgk fd ge mDr nqdkuksa esa viuk /kU/kk dj ysrs gS bl izdkj ogka ij jktdqekj xqtZj us vius HkkbZ fotsUnz xqtZj
dks nqdkuksa ij cSBk fn;k ftl ij vkt fnu rd nqdkuksa dk dCtk ugh fn;k rFkk edku dh fdjk;sukek dh j'khn eqds'k }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ ftlesa fy[kk dh mDr
edku 30 gtkj #i;s izfrekg vykok ikuh fctyh [kpkZ ds dSyk'k xqtZj ls fdjk;s ij ys fy;k gS ijUrq mDr j'khn rS;kj djus ds ckn edku dk dCtk dSyk'k xqtZj dks
ugh fn;k ftl ij orZeku esa Lo;a gh dkfct gS rFkk f'k'kqiky xqtZj dks mDr edku o nqdkuksa dh cspku dh tkudkjh gksus ij Hkh f'k'kqiky xqtZj us edku o
nqdkuksa ds lEcU/k esa dSyk'k xqtZj o mldh iRuh HkkSjhnsoh ds f[kykQ vnkyr es okn nk;j djok fn;k rFkk Jh jktsUnz Hkkj}kt }kjk dSyk'k xqtZj ls
edku [kjhnus gsrq dSyk'k xqtZj dks 28 yk[k #i;s o 9 yk[k #i;s fn;s Fks mudk pSd dSyk'k xqtZj us jktsUnz Hkkj}kt dks fn;k Fkk ftl ij le; ij Hkqxrku ugh
gksus ij jktsUnz Hkkj}kt us ,lhts,e nkSlk esa izdj.k 92@12 o 93@12 ntZ djok fn;k ftl ij vnkyr }kjk fu.kZ; gksus ij dSyk'k xqtZj o jktsUnz Hkkj}kt esa
#i;s dk ysuk nsuk r; gqvk rFkk dSyk'k xqtZj }kjk nkSlk dksVZ esa Mhts lkgc ds vihy dh ftl ij Mhts lkgc us vkil esa cSBdj le>kSrk djus ds vkns'k Qjek;s
ftl ij dSyk'k xqtZj } kjk16]50]000 #i;s jktsUnz Hkkj}kt dks udn fn;s rFkk 31]50]000 #i;s fnukad 22-12-2016 dks vihykUV jsLiksMsUV dks vnk dj nsxk
;g jkthukek gqvkA blds ckn ifjoknh }kjk dqN #i;s jktsUnz Hkkj}kt dks ns fn;s ftl ij jktsUnz Hkkj}kt us dSyk'k xqtZj dks izrkfMr djrk jgk fd ejs s ckdh
ds #i;s ,ao budk C;kt pqdrk dj ugha rks rjs s dks tsy fHktok nqaxkA bl izdkj /kedh;k nsuk o i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostksa ls Kkr gS fd dSyk'k xqtZj iwjh
rjg izrkfMr gksdj fMizs'ku esa vkdj vkRegR;k djuk ik;k x;k gSA izdj.k gktk esa fooknxzLr nLrkost lqlkbZV uksV dk ijh{k.k djokus gsrq e; fooknjfgr
nLrkostksa ds Jheku funsZ'kd egksn; jkT; fof/k foKku iz;ksx 'kkyk t;iqj es tek djokdj jfln izkIr dh tks 'kkfey i=koyh dh xbZA â€
As per status report, Shishupal Gurjar, Raj Kumar, Mukesh and petitioner Rajendra Bhardwaj have been held responsible for offence under Section
306 IPC.
A perusal of the record further reveals that bail application filed by Shishupal has been dismissed by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.2.2015.
Three other named accused namely, Shishupal Gurjar, Mukesh and Raj Kumar are not present before this Court. Thus, at this juncture, it will not be
appropriate to decide the present petition filed for quashing of FIR in absence of other three accused, as anything said herein may prejudice either of
the parties.
On the anvil of Section 107 IPC which defines abetment, it is moot point whether offence under Section 306 IPC in the facts and circumstances, is
made out or not.
Arguments are required to be heard at length taking into account the entire case law on the subject.
Consequently, the matter requires consideration, hence, the present case is admitted.
During the pendency of the present case, further proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR in the court below shall remain stayed.