Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that if the prosecution fails prima facie to show that that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide caused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860.
The instant application was filed for quashing the FIR registered for offence punishable under Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860 along with a prayer to stay the investigation in the said matter.
The complainant had a Loan Account with the Bank of Maharashtra wherein the applicant was discharging his duties as Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra.
In the present matter, complainant’s real brother is the deceased who committed suicide in 2015 by hanging himself.
Complainant lodged his report against the present applicant a day after his brother committed suicide.
Though the applicant was granted pre-arrest bail, he filed for the present proceedings to quash the FIR.
Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860
“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.”
Section 107 of Penal Code, 1860:
As per the First clause, “if a person instigates any person to do a particular thing, it can be said that he has abetted”.
High Court referred to the decision of Dilip v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 11 SCC 401.
Ratio: It is incumbent upon the prosecution to at least show prima facie case that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code.
In the present matter, it has been noted that the deceased was not having any loan outstanding in his name. According to the prosecution, the deceased went to the Bank of Maharashtra for a loan.
If previous loan amount is outstanding and if the applicant, who is Branch Manager of the said Bank, is refusing to grant any further loan, can be said as act of a vigilant and prudent banker and if he is not granting any further loan, it cannot be termed that by such act he instigated and/or abetted the person to commit suicide.
Hence, in view of the above, Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant. [Santoshkumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 914, decided on 09-09-2020]