9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1139 - HC - Indian LawsSufficient ground to proceed as contemplated under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code - whether the materials collected during investigation even if admitted for the sake of the arguments discloses commission of an offence under Section 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code? HELD THAT - It is true that additionally there is charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The main offence is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. If there is delivery of the property in pursuance to the cheating, it is punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is an allegation that the Applicant induced the deceased to join her company. The deceased has given all his best for the progress of the Company. It will not fall under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, because there is no delivery of the property. The first informant in his supplementary statement has stated about issuance of the cheque after the incident. Cheque is of Rs. 4,50,000/- and cash of Rs. 41,83,000/-. If the deceased is upset due to the decision of the Applicant, we cannot say that she has intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. A person may not like decision of another person. Ultimately whether to continue business or personal relation is choice of the parties. If other party may not like that decision and if he puts to an end to his life, it does not fall within the meaning of the intentionally aiding under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the provision of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Judge has failed to consider the absence relationship in between acts alleged and the consequence - Merely on account of the dispute, it cannot be said that it can be abetment. This Court has taken this view after perusing the statements and panchnamas on one hand and considering the ingredients of the Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code on the other hand. The Order dated 10/04/2015 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 658 of 2014 is set aside - Applicant is discharged for an offence under Sections 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code - Revision application is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the materials collected during the investigation disclose the commission of an offence under Sections 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The applicability of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code regarding abetment. 4. The relevance and genuineness of emails and digital evidence. 5. The applicability of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding cheating. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the materials collected during the investigation disclose the commission of an offence under Sections 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code: The court examined whether the collected evidence, even if admitted for argument's sake, indicated the commission of offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC. The trial court initially found that the applicant induced the deceased to join her business and later deceived him both personally and professionally. The trial court noted a grave suspicion against the applicant, leading to the rejection of the discharge application. 2. Whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The court discussed the scope of discharge applications, noting that the test for framing a charge is different from the test at the conclusion of the trial. The court must ascertain if there is sufficient ground to proceed based on the materials collected. The revisional court's role is to verify the legality of the findings and determine if the applicant must face trial. 3. The applicability of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code regarding abetment: The court analyzed the meaning of 'abetment' under Section 107, which includes instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aiding. It was noted that the prosecution did not claim the applicant instigated or conspired with others to induce the deceased to commit suicide. The relevant clause was "intentionally aiding an act of the suicide." The court found that the evidence suggested a business and personal relationship between the applicant and the deceased, which later soured, leading to the deceased's frustration and eventual suicide. 4. The relevance and genuineness of emails and digital evidence: The court reviewed various statements, panchnamas, and digital evidence, including emails sent by the deceased. The trial court had doubted the genuineness of these emails, but the revisional court emphasized that documents collected during the investigation should be treated as bona fide and true. The emails indicated the deceased's good feelings towards the applicant and his request not to blame her for his actions. The court found that these emails did not support the allegations of abetment. 5. The applicability of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding cheating: The court considered the charge under Section 420, noting that for cheating to be punishable under this section, there must be delivery of property in pursuance of the cheating. The allegations that the applicant induced the deceased to join her company and utilized his efforts for the company's progress did not fall under Section 420, as there was no delivery of property. The court found that these allegations were insufficient to make out a case under Section 420. Conclusion: The court concluded that the allegations and evidence fell short of making out a case under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC. The court emphasized the absence of a direct connection between the applicant's actions and the deceased's suicide. The trial court's failure to consider the provisions of Section 107 and the lack of material ingredients led to the decision to discharge the applicant. Order: (i) The revision application was allowed. (ii) The order dated 10/04/2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, was set aside. (iii) The applicant was discharged for offences under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC. (iv) The revision application and any pending interim applications were disposed of.
|
