Geo Varghese vs The State Of Rajasthan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 4512 OF 2019)

GEO VARGHESE … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2019

passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter

referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the First Information Report dated

02.05.2018 registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur

City (South), the accused, a Physical Training Teacher in St. Xavier’s School,

Nevta, Jaipur and also a member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining Signature Not Verified

overall discipline by the students of the School, who is to face prosecution for Digitally signed by Neelam Gulati Date: 2021.10.05 15:23:40 IST Reason: 1 offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)

is before us.

3. The appellant herein was appointed as a Physical Training Teacher in St.

Xavier’s School, Nevta in the year 2016. He was imparting Physical Training to

the students from 1st to 5th standard. He was also a member of the Disciplinary

Committee for maintaining overall discipline by the students of the School.

4. One student of Class 9th of the institution, unfortunately, committed

suicide in the morning at about 04:00 AM on 26.04.2018. The mother of the

deceased-student lodged the FIR in question on 02.05.2018 before the

concerned Police Station under Section 306 IPC after about 7 days of the

suicide, alleging that her son committed suicide due to mental harassment meted

out by the appellant.

5. Detailed facts as unfolded in the First Information Report by the

complainant- Respondent No. 2 was that :

On 26.04.2018, my son Nitant Raj Lata, aged 14 years was found hanging

with the fan in the room at 04:00 AM by his grandmother. Immediately,

the knot was opened and after bringing him down, he was immediately

taken to Santkba Durlabhji Hospital where doctors declared him brought

dead. The Hospital administration informed the concerned Police Station 2 immediately and on the same day, the body of deceased was handed over

to the police and postmortem was conducted. It is further stated in the

FIR that on 19.04.2018, Nitant Raj (the deceased) informed her that on

the said day his PTI (Physical Training Instructor) GEO Sir had harassed

and insulted him in the presence of everyone because of which he was

under deep mental pressure. However, she persuaded her son and sent

him to the School on Monday. Thereafter, on 25.04.2018, when the child

was in the School, a telephone call was received from school at about

09:00 AM calling the parents to come to the school on the next day i.e.,

26.04.2018. When Nitant returned from the school on 25.04.2018 again

he was under very much pressure and on being inquired he told that today

again GEO PTI Sir has harassed and insulted him very much. On this she

persuaded the child that we will go to school tomorrow and will discuss

because a phone call came from the school. Thereafter, the child had been

under more severe pressure and tension. He went to his room to sleep and

was found hanging at about 04:00 AM. It is further stated that on

30.04.2018 at 11:00 AM, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Kallu Khan, came

to the house and searched his room where a suicide note in two pages and

curtain which was used for hanging and other items like a blank copy

from which two pages were torn and note book, etc. were recovered.

3

6. Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, Dr.

Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Aditya

Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 2. We have

also gone through the impugned judgment as also the record of the case with the

assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

contended that on a plain reading of the First Information Report, by no stretch

of imagination, it can be said that necessary ingredients to constitute an offence

of abetment, as defined under Section 306 IPC, are not borne out and the

complaint does not disclose the commission of the said offence.

8. It was further asserted that the allegations made in the FIR clearly spells

out that appellant in no manner abetted the commission of suicide by the

deceased as no such material exists on record and present proceedings if

allowed to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

9. Shri Abhishek Gupta, also took us through the suicide note which is filed

as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same reveals that it is a note consisting of

three pages with following written on each separate paper :-

01st page – ‘MY ALL THINGS GOES TO MY DEAR BRO KAIRN EVEN MY

LOVE BYE BUDDY & SORRY’

02nd page – ‘NEEDED JUSTICE’ 4 03rd page – ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’

10. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of

Rajasthan contends that the allegations in the FIR discloses a commission of

cognizable offence and there is a suicide note specifically taking the name of the

appellant. He further contends that the appellant harassed the deceased from

19.04.2018 till 24.04.2018 and ultimately on the complaint of the appellant

when the deceased was called by the Principal on 25.04.2018 for bunking

classes and the parents were also asked to come to school on 26.04.2018, the

deceased committed suicide on the intervening night of 25.04.2018 - 26.04.2018

and there is a proximate nexus in the harassment and suicide and thus, a prima

facie case for alleged cognizable offence is made out against the appellant and

the High Court has rightly refused to quash the First Information Report.

11. Shri Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No. 2 – ‘the Complainant’, while trying to defend the impugned order submits

that the impugned First Information Report clearly makes out that appellant’s

direct and indirect acts of humiliation, harassment led the deceased boy to

commit suicide. He further submitted that the question of mens rea attributable

to the appellant cannot be established at this stage when the investigation is yet

to be completed.

5

12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person

committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is

considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by

anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set

out Section 306 of the IPC 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.”

14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary

dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a

modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means

‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,

act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the

means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.

15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and

prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of

IPC which reads as under :-

“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

6 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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

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.”

16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about

or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh

Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under :-

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.”

17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section

306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena

Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.2, it was observed as under:-

“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

1. (2001) 9 SCC 618

2. (2010) 12 SCC 190 7 sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case

of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3, while

considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306 IPC has

observed as under :-

“47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation ―and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal(Bhajan Lal) include a situation where the allegations made in the FIR 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. This legal position was recently

3. (2021) 2 SCC 427 8 reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra.

48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue.

The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I 34 fundamental issue which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant‘s prayer for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.”

19. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of

Police4, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of

Section 306 IPC in the following words:-

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

4. (2019) 3 SCC 315 9

20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-

Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Haryana5, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 306 IPC in the following words:-

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which

5. (2019) 17 SCC 301 10 leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.

However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the

case of Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr., 6

wherein the judgement rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under

Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section

306 IPC stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila

Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher used to make frequent

calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the

efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and

stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was

a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on

6. (2019) 13 SCC 598 11 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has

been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged.

Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the

FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged

before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the

following observations:-

“We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent.”

In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication

that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had

continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct

despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively

facilitated in the commission of suicide.

12

22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under

Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of

incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of

harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself,

unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which

compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide

is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not

ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step

of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment

of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own

facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding

circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the

accused and the psyche of the deceased.

23. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the facts

of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306

IPC exist, even prima-facie, to continue with the investigations.

24. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental pressure because

the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone

and he was not willing to go to school on 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to

school by the complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was

13 under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today again he was

harassed and insulted by the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was

informed that the parents have been called to school next day and this brought

him under further severe pressure and tension.

25. In the First Information Report and as also the statement of the

complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to

harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any details with respect

to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have

felt being harassed and insulted.

26. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High

Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High

Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to

the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was

imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard and being a

member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of

maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon

students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the

same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also

stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and

was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times. On

14 19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes and moving around

the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to

him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the appellant

issued him a warning and on account of persistent act of bunking classes,

reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of

the boy to come to the school.

27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not

uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being

upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The

disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school,

reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would

not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are

repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any

justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his

behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to

inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not

amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a

student.

28. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ an old saying may have lost its

relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not

15 recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities

have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It is not only a moral

duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular

meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity

in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or

relevant information about the child.

29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking

classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought this fact

to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come

to the school. No further overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in

the First Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor

anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note. The alleged

suicide note only records insofar as, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS

GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute

any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the

offence for which he is being charged.

30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline

and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the

institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school 16 discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or

sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same

and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306

IPC.

31. Our answer to the said question is 'No'.

32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any

act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without their being any

circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part

to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea can be

attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is conspicuously missing from

the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the absence of the element of abetment

missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under section

306 IPC do not exist.

33. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court while

mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that

FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482

CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

17 now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly,

every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and

substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers

being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great

caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in

exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested

in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However,

the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court,

entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that

allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the

Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

35. The following observations made by this Court in the case of State of

Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors.7 may be relevant to note at this stage:-

“The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice

7. (1977) 2 SCC 699 18 must be administered according to laws made by the legislature.”

36. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.8, this Court observed in paragraph 7 as under :-

“7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

37. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 9, this Court held that

it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify an exhaustive list of the cases, where

such power should be exercised. However, by way of illustration, the Court laid

down the following categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice.

8. (1988) 1 SCC 692

9. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 19 “(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 F.I.R. 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.

(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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

20 (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.”

38. In the case of M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd.

Sharaful Haque & Anr.10, this Court observed as under :-

“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 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.”

39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute examination

of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document, penned

down by an immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hyper-

sensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extra-

ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the accused, who was his teacher,

otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to

commit suicide.

10. (2005) 1 SCC 122 21

40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie, in the FIR or

statement of the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any

such act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it

would be absurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to place the

deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except

to commit suicide.

41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature,

not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the

appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant

experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great

prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant

nature.

42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineated herein above

and the legal principles enunciated by a series of pronouncements of this Court

discussed herein above, we are of the view that High Court was not justified in

dismissing the application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the First

Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

43. We are conscious of the pain and suffering of the complainant who is the

mother of the deceased boy. It is also very unfortunate that a young life has

22 been lost in this manner, but our sympathies and the pain and suffering of the

complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy, much less a criminal

prosecution.

44. In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned judgment of the

High Court dated 30.04.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The

First Information Report registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station

Sodala, Jaipur City (South), stands quashed.

45. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

....…..........................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

…................................J. (KRISHNA MURARI)

NEW DELHI;

05 OCTOBER, 2021

23