Smt. Govindi Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Sri H.O. Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

By way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved by applicant-Smt. Govindi Devi, the prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet against her, which is pending as Criminal case No. 809 of 2008, State v. Mahesh Kandpal and another.

The backgrounds facts of the entire episode are that Smt. Govindi Devi is the neighbour of Sanjay Joshi-Respondent No. 2. Smt. Govindi Devi''s son Mahesh Kandpal developed an affair with the sister of Sanjay Joshi named Km. Sunita, who was studying in XIth standard in the local college at Haldwani. In the intervening night of 15/16.11.2007 at about 11:30 AM at village Arjunpur Goraparao, accused Mahesh Kandpal entered in the house of Sanjay Joshi where Km. Sunita was sleeping in her room. Accused Mahesh Kandpal made sexual advancements with Km. Sunita. All other members of the family including uncle Nanda Ballabh Joshi, aunt Smt. Hansi Joshi, grandmother Smt. Leelawati, mother Smt. Hema Joshi and another brother Jagdish Joshi were present in the house itself at their own respective places of rest. When an alarm was raised by Sunita, all family members run to her room and found that Mahesh was indulged in sexual advancement with Sunita. All family members scolded Mahesh and expelled him out from the home. Even thereafter Mahesh Kandpal continued to extend threats to Sunita that he will kill her. Next date in the morning, uncle Nand Ballabh Joshi went to the house of Mahesh Kandpal and complained of his conduct but Mahesh did not realize his fault and continued to make foul ring calls to Sunita. Km. Sunita, feeling ashamed of and in order to advert her defamation, consumed some poisonous substance at about 11 AM and breathed her last at 12 PM. The FIR was lodged on 16.11.2007 in the police station Haldwani for the offence of Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was submitted against Mahesh Kandpal and his mother Govindi Devi for the offence of Sections 306/354/452/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the said chargesheet on dated 6.2.2008. Thereafter this petition was filed by the applicant seeking to quash the said chargesheet against her. The Court has been apprised that the case was committed against Mahesh Kandpal and the trial in the court of Sessions Judge is at the verge of conclusion.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that Smt. Govindi Devi never instigated the deceased Km. Sunita for the suicide. The act of Smt. Govindi Devi, as has been indicated in the suicide note of Km. Sunita, is not sufficient for the submission of chargesheet against her. Learned Counsel has also read the suicide note before this Court where the deceased has specifically attributed the cause of his death against Mahesh. No. specific role either of abetment or instigation has been assigned to the present applicant. In the FIR also, it was stated that uncle Nanda Ballabh Joshi went to the house of Smt. Govindi Devi to complain the act and behavior of her son but she played an indifferent role and did not rebuke her son.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a precedent of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of "Sanju alia Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 731". The Apex Court in a similar matter of suicide and abetment thereof was of the view that mere utterance of the words to the deceased "to go and die" is not enough to implicate the person who uttered those words, even if those words were uttered during the course of quarrel between the two because the deceased committed suicide two days after of that quarrel. So the Apex Court was of the view that the suicide was not proximate to that quarrel. In such circumstances, even the accused was named in the suicide note, he cannot be held directly responsible for the suicide of the deceased.

In the instant case, Smt. Govindi Devi is neither directly named nor has uttered any word to the deceased before her death. Simply, in the entire episode, she remained indifferent towards her son and did not check him. This much role of the applicant, in the opinion of the court, is not sufficient to implicate her as the co-accused along with her son Mahesh Kandpal.

So in the opinion of the Court, the chargesheet against the applicant is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. C482 petition is allowed accordingly.