# Romit Saini v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2038 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/romit-saini-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51700
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 107 & 306 - Code of Criminal
Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Against
rejection of discharge application - -
Opposite party no.2 lodged FIR alleging
that her husband, Section Officer, was
found hanging from ceiling inside a closed
room - It was St.d that deceased had
informed her of harassment by applicant
and
left
suicide
note
attributing
responsibility for his death to applicant -
Upon investigation, charge sheet filed
against applicant, where after trial court
took cognizance, summoned applicant to
face trial - Applicant contends that
suicide note does not disclose any act of
instigation by applicant and apart from
note, no evidence exists to establish
abetment of suicide - During pendency,
applicant filed discharge application u/s
227 Cr.P.C., rejected - Applicant filed
present application challenging said order
- Held, suicide note records that deceased
paid ₹35 lakhs to applicant, who was
unable to repay amount - It does not
allege deliberate non-payment or any
specific act of applicant, apart from bare
assertion of responsibility for suicide -
There is no allegation of any direct or
indirect act of incitement to commit
suicide - A mere assertion that applicant
responsible due to inability to repay
amount does not constitute abetment of
suicide
-
Impugned
order,
quashed,
applicant stands discharged. (Para 3, 5, 6,
7, 16, 17)

Application allowed. (E-13)
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Romit Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
907
the accused persons when trial reached the
stage of hearing final submissions, for
summoning the investigating officer, who
is an officer of the prosecution. The
prosecution could have produced the
investigating officer as its witness, but it
chose not to examine him. The accused
also examined his witnesses but he chose
not to examine the investigating officer as a
defence witness. When the trial reached the
stage of submissions, the application has
been
moved
for
summoning
the
investigating officer as a witness on the
ground that he had submitted a final report.
Submission of the final report is not a
disputed question of fact and there does not
appear to be any necessity for examination
of the investigating officer to prove this
fact.

18. Besides making a bald statement
that it would be in the interest of justice to
examine the investigating officer, nothing
has been stated as to why his examination
is essential for a just decision of the case.

19. From the aforesaid discussion
calling of the investigating officer to be
examined a witness at this stage does not
appear to be essential for a just decision of
a case. The application has been moved
apparently to cause delay in conclusion of
the trial and it has rightly been rejected by
the trial court.

20. As there is no illegality in the
order of the trial court, the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and
the same is hereby rejected.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.03.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2038 of 2024

Romit Saini ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Bhupendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Prateek Tewari

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 107 & 306 - Code of Criminal
Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Against
rejection of discharge application - -
Opposite party no.2 lodged FIR alleging
that her husband, Section Officer, was
found hanging from ceiling inside a closed
room - It was St.d that deceased had
informed her of harassment by applicant
and
left
suicide
note
attributing
responsibility for his death to applicant -
Upon investigation, charge sheet filed
against applicant, where after trial court
took cognizance, summoned applicant to
face trial - Applicant contends that
suicide note does not disclose any act of
instigation by applicant and apart from
note, no evidence exists to establish
abetment of suicide - During pendency,
applicant filed discharge application u/s
227 Cr.P.C., rejected - Applicant filed
present application challenging said order
- Held, suicide note records that deceased
paid ₹35 lakhs to applicant, who was
unable to repay amount - It does not
allege deliberate non-payment or any
specific act of applicant, apart from bare
assertion of responsibility for suicide -
There is no allegation of any direct or
indirect act of incitement to commit
suicide - A mere assertion that applicant
responsible due to inability to repay
amount does not constitute abetment of
suicide
-
Impugned
order,
quashed,
applicant stands discharged. (Para 3, 5, 6,
7, 16, 17)

Application allowed. (E-13)
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. M. Mohan Vs St., (2011) 3 SCC 626, (Paras
44, 45), (Followed)

2. Prabhat Kumar Mishra Vs St. of U.P., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 232

3. Mahendra Singh Vs St. of M.P., 1995 Supp
(3) SCC 731, (Para 2)

4. Ramesh Kumar Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618, (Paras 19, 20)

5. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj., (2021) 19 SCC
144, (Para 22)

6. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, (Para 102)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath
Tripathi, the learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned
A.G.A-I for the State and Sri. Prateek
Tewari, the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2.

2. In application filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C- 8898 of 2024, the applicant
has challenged the validity of an order
dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I.
(A.P.), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.
64083 of 2023 (State Vs. Romit Soni) and
the charge sheet dated 03.06.2022 arising
out of Case rime No. 085 of 2021 under
Section 306 I.P.C, P.S Mahangar, District
Lucknow and in application filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C- 2038 of 2024, the
applicant has challenged the validity of an
order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District and Session
Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow in Session
Trial No. 170 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs.
Romit Soni), arising out of Case rime No.
85 of 2021 under Section 306 I.P.C, P.S
Mahangar,
District
Lucknow
North
(Commissionerate Lucknow), whereby an
application filed by the applicant under
Section 227 Cr.P.C for his discharge has
been rejected.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case
are that the opposite party no.2 had lodged
an F.I.R on 20.03.2021. stating that his
husband was working as a Section Officer
in the Civil Secretariat, U.P. He was found
dead hanging from the ceiling inside a
closed room of the house. The complainant
stated in the F.I.R that her husband used to
tell her that the applicant was harassing her.
He had left a suicide note wherein he had
held that the applicant is responsible for his
suicide.

4. In the suicide note, the deceased
wrote that he had paid Rs. 35 lakhs to the
applicant, which he is unable to party. He
wrote that the applicant was responsible for
his suicide.

5.

After
investigation,
the
investigating office has submitted a charge
sheet on 03.09.2022 against the applicant
under Section 306 I.P.C and the trial court
took cognizance of the offence by means of
an order dated 07.06.2023 and summoned
the applicant to face the trial.

6. The submission of the learned
counsel of the applicant is that from the
contents of the suicide note, no case of
instigation for suicide is made out against
the applicant. Besides the suicide note there
is no other evidence to establish that the
applicant had instigated the deceased to
commit suicide.

7.

During
pendency
of
the
application, the applicant had filed an
3 All. Romit Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909
application for discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C which was rejected by means of an
order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the trial
court and the applicant has filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No.
2038 of 2024 challenging the validity of an
order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District and Session
Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A-I as
well as the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 have submitted that the deceased
has clearly written in the suicide note that
he had committed becasue of the applicant
and the applicant is responsible for the
same. Therefore, a case for trial of the
applicant is made out and the prosecution
should not be scuttle at the threshold
without trial of the applicant.

9. I have considered the submission of
the learned counsel for the parties.

10. Abetment of suicide is defined in
Section 306 I.P.C. as follows: -

"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."

"Abetment of a thing" has been
defined under Section 107 of the Code,
which reads as under:

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

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.

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorised
by a warrant from a Court of Justice to
apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also
that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that
C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A
to apprehend C. Here B abets by
instigation the apprehension of C.

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."

11. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3
SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"44. 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
sustained.

45.
The
intention
of
the
legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are 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
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide."

12. The aforesaid judgment in M.
Mohan (Supra) has recently been followed
in Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of
U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 232.

13. In Mahendra Singh v. State of
M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, the three
appellants were convicted under Section
306 IPC based on the following dying
declaration of the deceased:

"My mother-in-law and husband
and sister-in-law harassed me. They beat
me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because
of these reasons and being harassed I want
to die by burning."

Allowing the appeal and setting
aside conviction, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -

"2. ... The dying declaration, per
se, could not involve the appellants in
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
because it provides for abetment of suicide.
Whoever abets the commission of suicide,
and if any person commits suicide due to
that reason, he shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has
been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean
that a person abets the doing of a thing
who firstly instigates any person to do a
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. Neither of
the ingredients of abetment are attracted
on the statement of the deceased. The
conviction of the appellants under Section
306 IPC merely on the allegation of
harassment
to
the
deceased
is
not
sustainable."

14. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the
dying declaration was as under: -

"Q. What is your name? What is
the name of husband? Marriage when
done?

Ans.
Seema
Bai.
Name
of
husband - Ramesh Dubey. Marriage
performed in June 1985.

Q. What happened with you?

Ans. Today in the morning I
poured kerosene on me and set fire.

Q. Why you set fire?

Ans. Today in the morning
quarrel had occurred between me and my
husband.

Q. Previously also quarrel had
occurred at any time?

Ans. No. From being aggrieved
by the quarrel of today, I set fire.

Q. What happened in today's
quarrel?

Ans. In the morning he told me
that you are free. You go wherever you
want to go.

Q. Whether you want to say
anything more?

Ans. No."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"19. The picture which emerges
from a cumulative reading and assessment
of
the
material
available
is
this:
presumably because of disinclination on
the part of the accused to drop the
3 All. Romit Saini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
deceased at her sister's residence the
deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and
depressed. She was overtaken by a feeling
of shortcomings which she attributed to
herself. She was overcome by a forceful
feeling generating within her that in the
assessment of her husband she did not
deserve to be his life partner. The accused
Ramesh may or must have told the
deceased that she was free to go anywhere
she liked. Maybe that was in a fit of anger
as contrary to his wish and immediate
convenience the deceased was emphatic on
being dropped at her sister's residence to
see her. Presumably the accused may have
said some such thing - you are free to do
whatever you wish and go wherever you
like. The deceased being a pious Hindu
wife felt that having being given in
marriage by her parents to her husband,
she had no other place to go excepting the
house of her husband and if the husband
had "freed" her she thought impulsively
that the only thing which she could do was
to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free
herself according to her understanding of
the husband's wish. Can this be called an
abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the
trial court misspelt out the meaning of the
expression attributed by the deceased to
her husband as suggesting that the accused
had made her free to commit suicide.
Making the deceased free - to go
wherever she liked and to do whatever she
wished, does not and cannot mean even by
stretching that the accused had made the
deceased free "to commit suicide" as held
by the trial court and upheld by the High
Court.

20. Instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
"an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or
what
constitutes
instigation
must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one
is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course
of conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."

15. In Geo Varghese v. State of
Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, the suicide
note
consisted
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'

03rd page - 'thanks geo (pti) of
my school'

The Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to various precedents on the point
and held that: -

"22.
What
is
required
to
constitute an alleged abetment of suicide
under Section 306IPC 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 are otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly situated
person to take the extreme step of
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

16. When this court examines the
facts of the present case in the light of the
law laid down in the aforesaid cases, it
appears that the deceased had written in the
suicide note that he had paid rupees thirty
five lacs to the applicant and the applicant
was unable to repay the amount. He did not
allege that the applicant was not repaying
the amount deliberately. Besides stating
that the applicant was unable to repay the
amount and that the applicant was
responsible for his suicide note, the
deceased did not alleged commission of
any act by the applicant.

17. Therefore, there is no allegation of
either direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commission of offence of suicide. By
merely stating that the applicant was
responsible for suicide of the deceased as
he was unable to repay the money taken
from the deceased, no case for abetment of
suicide is made out against the applicant.

18. In the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the law
laid down in various precedents regarding
scope of interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and summarized the law in the
following words:-

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(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 FIR 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.
3 All. Mohammad Waseem Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913

(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.

(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."

19. The present case falls within the
categories of (1) and (3) as from the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the
material collected during investigation, no
case of abetment of suicide is made out
against the applicant.

20. In these circumstances, the
continuance
of
criminal
proceedings
against the applicant would not be in the
interest
of
justice.
Accordingly,
the
application is allowed and the order dated
07.06.2023
passed
by
the
Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I.
(A.P.), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.
64083 of 2023 (State Vs. Romit Soni) and
the charge sheet dated 03.06.2022 arising
out of Case Crime No. 085 of 2021 under
Section 306 I.P.C, P.S Mahangar, District
Lucknow and the order dated 15.02.2024
passed by the learned Additional District
and Session Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow
in Session Trial No. 170 of 2024 (State of
U.P. Vs. Romit Soni), arising out of Case
rime No. 85 of 2021 under Section 306
I.P.C, P.S Mahangar, District Lucknow
North (Commissionerate Lucknow) are
hereby quashed and the applicant stands
discharged.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 913
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2042 of 2024

Mohammad Waseem ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 2/3 -
As regards submission of counsel for
applicant that co-accused granted interim
relief by order dated 09.01.2024 in Munshi
Lal & Anr. (infra), it is sufficient to observe
that grant of interim relief by coordinate
Bench, based on judgment not holding as
good law, cannot persuade Court from
examining merits of present application -
On consideration of facts and law laid
down, it emerges that Lekhpal, in FIR,
alleged that co-accused Aqueel Ahmad @
Beeka had taken into possession of
government land earmarked as chakroad
and nali, and that applicant, proprietor of
Sherehind Infracon Pvt. Ltd., was carving
out residential plots thereon, including on
government
land
-
In
these
circumstances, case for prosecution of