Can legal notice, filing complaint lead to abetment of suicide? What the Delhi High Court held [Read Order]

While deciding whether issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint would amount to abetment of suicide, the Delhi High Court observed that filing of a criminal complaint by the petitioner in the case was his legal recourse, as advised to him [Atul Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi].

The petitioner before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri had challenged an order that had refused to accept the police’s closure report against him in the case.

The order stated,

“…the transaction between the petitioner and the deceased relating to purchase of a vintage motorcycle is an admitted fact. Whether the motorcycle was delivered to the petitioner or not, would have been established after inquiry. It cannot be said that by filing a criminal complaint against the deceased, the petitioner had the mens rea to instigate or goad the deceased to commit suicide; and further, that the deceased was left with no other option but to (sic) commit suicide.”

The case stemmed from a purported suicidal death of a person who was in the business of vintage motorcycles. The petitioner, who lives in the US, was stated to have made a purchase of a motorcycle by transferring money to the deceased in 2012. When the purchaser did not receive the motorcycle, he was said to have shot off a legal notice to the deceased on his visit to India in 2014.

The petitioner subsequently filed a criminal complaint at the local police station. The Court was informed that the man left India on the intervening night of December 5 and 6, 2014. However, on December 9, 2014, the deceased was stated to have died by suicide and left behind a note blaming the petitioner for taking such an extreme step.

The petitioner approached the High Court against an order of the trial court which had rejected the closure report against him in the abetment of suicide case.

The Delhi High Court narrowed down the issue to whether issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint by the petitioner would amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that his client had only acted according to the legal advice he had received. It was argued that the prosecution’s case did not accused the petitioner of either threatening the deceased or interacting with him during his stay in India.

Taking legal recourse to one’s remedy, by no stretch of imagination, amounts to abetment, he added.

On the contrary, counsel for the deceased’s wife, who was the complainant in the case, emphasised on the suicide note to claim that the petitioner harassed the deceased despite having taken possession of the motorcycle in the year 2012.

The wife’s counsel pointed out that after coming to India, the petitioner had sent a legal notice besides lodging a false police complaint against the deceased as he wanted his other motorcycles to be serviced by the deceased free of cost.

The Court observed that in order to prove that the petitioner was guilty of abetment, there had to be a link and proximity of the petitioner’s acts with the suicide.

“It has to be shown that the petitioner did an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option. Also, it has to be shown that the petitioner’s act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that they committed suicide. Further, the prosecution has to show that the petitioner had the mens-rea to commit the offence,” it noted.

The Court opined that abetment involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing.

It said that though the deceased had felt harassed, the petitioner’s act could not be stated to have abetted his suicide. It said,

“The filing of a criminal complaint by the petitioner was his legal recourse, as advised to him.”

On an analysis of the case’s facts in view of the legal principles cited in the order, neither did any live link nor any proximity emerge between the petitioner’s acts and the suicide.

“The requisite mens rea on part of the petitioner is also lacking. It cannot be said that the petitioner had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. This Court is of the opinion that necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the petitioner with the result that the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ (additional sessions judge) directing the trial court to proceed with the matter, is set aside,” held the Court.

Advocates Sarojanand Jha, Suraj Malik and Megha Shawani represented the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor Neelam Sharma appeared for State. Advocate Amarjeet Singh Sahni represented the complainant.

[READ ORDER]