2021 INSC 0537 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2021 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019] Kanchan Sharma …..Appellant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. Leave granted.  2. This   criminal   appeal   is   filed   by   the   applicant   in   Application No.27662 of 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the   High   Court   of   Allahabad,   dismissing   her   application   filed   under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).   3. That on 11.05.2018, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.278/2018 was registered at P.S. T.P. Nagar Police Station, District Meerut on the complaint   of   Vijaydeep   (complainant   and   brother   of   the   deceased) 1 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 under Sections 328, 302, IPC and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the   Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989   (for   short, ‘the Act’), alleging that his brother Vikas (deceased) was called by the appellant   –   Kanchan   Sharma   on   04.05.2018   at   her   house.     At   that point  of   time   his   brother   was   on   duty   at   PVM   Logistic   Company   and on   such   call,   he   went   to   the   house   of   the   appellant,   wherein   the appellant’s  father,  mother  and  sister  met  his  brother  and  all  of  them abused   his   brother   with   casteist   abuses   and   forcefully   administered poison   to   him   and   consequently   his   brother   became   unconscious. Complainant further stated that his brother was taken to hospital and due to the negligence of the hospital, he died. 4. Initially   FIR   was   registered   for   offences   punishable   under Sections   328,   302   of   IPC   and   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act   against   the appellant, her brother and sister.   After investigation, final report was filed only against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.   On filing such final report, cognizance was   taken   against   the   appellant   and   on   21.02.2019   non­bailable warrants   were   issued   against   the   appellant.     After   filing   of   the   final report,   case   was   registered   against   the   appellant   in   Special   Sessions Trial No.23 of 2019 (State v. Kanchan Sharma) under Section 306 IPC and   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act,   which   is   pending   on   the   file   of   the 2 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge   /   Special   Judge,   Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Meerut. 5. Appellant herein has approached the High Court for quashing of cognizance order / NBW issued against her as well as the criminal proceedings   in   Special   Trial   No.23   of   2019   pending   on   the   file   of   the Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge   /   Special   Judge,   Scheduled Castes   &   Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   by   way   of application under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings.  It was the case of the appellant before the High Court that no offence is made   out   against   the   appellant   to   proceed   for   trial   for   the   alleged offence   under   Section   306,   IPC   and   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act.     The High   Court,   by   impugned   order,   has   disposed   of   the   petition   mainly on   the   ground   that   the   disputed   questions   of   fact   cannot   be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482, Cr.PC. 6. We   have   heard   Sri   Sanchit   Garga,   learned   counsel   for   the appellant   and   Sri   Aviral   Saxena,   learned   counsel   for   the   1 st respondent­State.   Though  the 2 nd   respondent­complainant  is  served, there is no appearance on his behalf before this Court. 7. Sri   Garga,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   mainly contended   that   there   is   absolutely   no   basis   to   proceed   against   the appellant for  alleged  offence  under   Section  306,  IPC  and  Section  3(2) 3 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 (v)   of   the   Act.     It   is   submitted   that   except   that   the   appellant   was harassed   by   the   deceased   by   following   her   and   proposing   marriage with him there is absolutely no basis to allege that the appellant has abetted the suicide of the deceased.  It is submitted that on the day of incident, i.e., 04.05.2018 deceased came to the house of the appellant and   started   shouting   that   he   would   marry   the   appellant   and   if   her marriage   was   not   solemnized   he   would   consume   poison.     Within   no time thereafter he consumed poison from a small bottle which he was holding   in   his   hand   and   fell   unconscious   and   thereafter   died   in   the hospital.     It is  submitted  that  in  absence  of  any  of  the  ingredients  of Section   306/107,   IPC,   appellant   cannot   be   subjected   to   trial   for   the offence   under   Section   306,   IPC   and   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act.     It   is submitted that by considering the material as it is on record even the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is not made out. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1­State has   submitted   that   the   deceased   was   maintaining   relation   with   the appellant.     As   she   has   refused   to   marry   the   deceased,   deceased   has committed   suicide   by   consuming   poison.     In   view   of   the   relation maintained by her, it amounts to abetment for committing the suicide by   the   deceased   within   the   meaning   of   Section   306   of   IPC.     It   is further submitted that the appellant and other members of the family 4 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 have   abused   the   deceased   by   uttering   casteist   words,   as   such, appellant   is   rightly   sought   to   be   prosecuted   for   the   offence   under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.   Except the self­serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that   deceased   was   in   love   with   the   appellant,   there   is   no   other material to show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased.     From  the   material   placed   on  record   it  is   clear  that  on  the date   of   incident   on   04.05.2018   deceased   went   to   the   house   of   the appellant   and   consumed   poison   by   taking   out   from   a   small   bottle which   he   has   carried   in   his   pocket.     Merely   because   he   consumed poison   in   front   of   the   house   of   the   appellant,   that   itself   will   not indicate   any   relation   of   the   appellant   with   the   deceased.     ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a  person  in  doing  of  a  thing.    Without  positive  act  on  the   part of  the accused   to   instigate   or   aid   in   committing   suicide,   no   one   can   be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC.   To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or   direct   act   which   led   the   deceased   to   commit   suicide,   seeing   no 5 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 option   and   that   act   must   have   been   intended   to   push   the   deceased into   such   a  position   that   he   committed   suicide.     There   is   nothing   on record   to   show   that   appellant   was   maintaining   relation   with   the deceased   and   further   there   is   absolutely   no   material   to   allege   that appellant   abetted   for   suicide   of   the   deceased   within   the   meaning   of Section   306,   IPC.     Even   with   regard   to   offence   alleged   under   Section 3(2)(v)   of   the   Act   it   is   to   be   noticed   that   except   vague   and   bald statement   that   the   appellant   and   other   family   members   abused deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show   to   attract   any   of   the   ingredients   for   the   alleged   offence   also. This Court in the case of   Chitresh Kumar Chopra   v.   State (Govt. of NCT   of  Delhi) 1   had an  occasion to  deal with  the  aspect of  abetment. In   the   said   case   this   Court   has   opined   that   there   should   be   an intention   to   provoke,   incite   or   encourage   the   doing   of   an   act   by   the accused.     Besides,   the   judgment   also   observed   that   each   person’s suicidability   pattern   is   different   from   the   other   and   each   person   has his own idea of self­esteem and self­respect.  In the said judgment it is held   that   it   is   impossible   to   lay   down   any   straightjacket   formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to  be decided on the   basis   of   its   own   facts   and   circumstances.     In   the   case   of 1 (2009) 16 SCC 605 6 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu  v.  State of West Bengal 2   in order to bring a case   within   the   purview   of   Section   306,   IPC   this   Court   has   held   as under :  “12.   Thus,   this   Court   has   consistently   taken   the   view   that before   holding   an   accused   guilty   of   an   offence   under   Section 306   IPC,   the   court   must   scrupulously   examine   the   facts   and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before   it   in   order   to   find   out   whether   the   cruelty   and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other   alternative   but   to   put   an   end   to   her   life.   It   is   also   to   be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must   be   proof   of   direct   or   indirect   acts   of   incitement   to   the commission   of   suicide.   Merely   on   the   allegation   of   harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence   on   the   part   of   the   accused   which   led   or   compelled the   person   to   commit   suicide,   conviction   in   terms   of   Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13.   In   order   to   bring   a   case   within   the   purview   of   Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of   the   said   offence,   the   person   who   is   said  to   have   abetted   the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with   the   said   offence   must   be   proved   and   established   by   the prosecution   before   he   could   be   convicted   under   Section   306 IPC.” In the judgment in the case of  S.S. Chheena  v.  Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. 3   this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC.  Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under : “25.   Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally   aiding   a   person   in   doing   of   a   thing.   Without   a   positive 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 3 (2010) 12 SCC 190 7 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 act   on   the   part   of   the   accused   to   instigate   or   aid   in   committing suicide,   conviction   cannot   be   sustained.   The   intention   of   the legislature   and   the   ratio   of   the   cases   decided   by   this   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.” In   the   judgment   in   the   case   of   Rajiv   Thapar   &   Ors.   v.   Madan   Lal Kapur 4   this   Court   has   considered   the   scope   of   the   provision   under Section   482,   Cr.PC   and   has   laid   down   the   steps   which   should   be followed   by   the   High   Court   to   determine   the   veracity   of   a   prayer   for quashing   of   proceedings   in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   482, Cr.PC.  Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under : “ 30.   Based   on   the   factors   canvassed   in   the   foregoing   paragraphs, we   would  delineate   the  following   steps   to   determine   the   veracity   of   a prayer   for   quashment   raised   by   an   accused   by   invoking   the   power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step   two :   whether   the   material   relied   upon   by   the   accused would   rule   out   the   assertions   contained   in   the   charges   levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the   factual   assertions   contained   in   the   complaint   i.e.   the   material   is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step   three :   whether   the   material   relied   upon   by   the   accused has   not   been   refuted   by   the   prosecution/complainant;   and/or   the 4 (2013) 3 SCC 330 8 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 material   is   such   that   it   cannot   be   justifiably   refuted   by   the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step   four :   whether   proceeding   with   the   trial   would   result   in an   abuse   of   process   of   the   court,   and   would   not   serve   the   ends   of justice? 30.5.   If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience   of   the   High   Court   should   persuade   it   to   quash   such criminal   proceedings   in   exercise   of   power   vested   in   it   under   Section 482   CrPC.   Such   exercise   of   power,   besides   doing   justice   to   the accused,   would   save   precious   court   time,   which   would   otherwise   be wasted   in   holding   such   a   trial   (as   well   as   proceedings   arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material on record and examined the facts of the   case   on   hand.     Except   the   statement   that   the   deceased   was   in relation   with   the   appellant,   there   is   no   material   at   all   to   show   that appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased.   In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about   the   calls   which   were   being   made   by   the   deceased   to   the appellant.     Same   is   evident   from   the   statement   of   S.I.   Manoj   Kumar recorded   on   05.07.2018.     In   his   statement   recorded   he   has   clearly deposed   that   the   father   along   with   the   appellant   went   to   the   police post   and   complained   against   the   deceased   who   was   continuously 9 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat   that   he   will   die   otherwise.     Having   regard   to   such   material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant   for   the   alleged   offence   under   Section   306   IPC   and   Section 3(2)(v)   of   the   Act.     It   would   be   travesty   of   justice   to   compel   the appellant   to   face   a   criminal   trial   without   any   credible   material whatsoever. 11. In   view   of   the   same,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the   High   Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. 12. For   the   aforesaid   reasons,   this   appeal   is   allowed   and   Order dated   18.07.2019   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   in Application   No.27662   of   2019   is   set   aside.     Consequently,   the   said application   stands   allowed   by   quashing   the   order/NBW   dated 21.02.2019   as   well   as   proceedings   of   Special   Trial   No.23   of   2019 (State   v.   Kanchan   Sharma)   arising   out   of   Crime   No.0278   of   2018 under   Section   306,   IPC   and   3(2)(v)   of   The   Scheduled   Castes   and   the 10 Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989   pending   in   the court   of   Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge   /   Special   Judge   (SC   & ST Act), Meerut. ………………………………J. [R. Subhash Reddy]  ………………………………J. [Hrishikesh Roy] New Delhi. September 17, 2021. 11