1

Non-Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  765      OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of 2018)

Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke      ……Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Another   ..…. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated

23.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at

Aurangabad dismissing Criminal Application No.4724 of 2017 preferred by

the appellant.

2

3. One Kishor Parashar serving in the office of the Deputy Director of

Education Aurangabad, committed suicide on 08.08.2017 in his house.  His

wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from

mental torture as his higher officers were getting heavy work done from her

husband which required him to work from 10.00 am to 10.00 pm; that her

husband would be called at odd hours and even on holidays to get the work

done;  that  officer  named  Vaijnath  Kondiba  Khandke  (the  appellant)  had

stopped his salary for one month and was threatening her husband that his

increment would be stopped; that one of the co-worker named Ghorpade

Madam used to get her work done from her husband; that because of the

pressure  of  work  her  husband  used  to  remain  silent  and  that  these  two

persons  were  responsible  for  the  suicide  committed  by  her  husband.

Pursuant to the aforesaid reporting, FIR No.268 of 2017 dated 09.08.2017

was registered against the appellant and one Vidya Ghorpade under Sections

306,  506  read  with  Section  34  IPC with  Police  Station  MIDC,  CIDCO,

Aurangabad.

4. The  appellant  as  well  as  said  Vidya  Ghorpade  filed  Criminal

Application Nos.4724 of  2017 and 5174 of 2017 respectively under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR.  It was submitted that

3

the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable and did not

make out any case against the applicants.  Around this time, the applications

preferred by the applicants for anticipatory bail were accepted with certain

conditions.   The  applications  preferred  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  were

thereafter taken up for hearing.  The High Court accepted the plea made by

Vidya  Ghorpade  and  quashed  the  proceedings  against  her.   However,

Criminal  Application  No.4724  of  2017  preferred  by  the  appellant  was

dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 23.01.2018

which is presently under appeal.  It was observed:

“The facts herein indicate that,  there was no direct abetment and the applicants cannot have any intention that the deceased should commit suicide.  Even when the accused persons have no such intention, if they create situation causing tremendous mental tension so as to drive the person to commit suicide, they can be said to be instigating the accused to commit suicide…..”

5. In this appeal, we heard Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned Advocate for

the appellant and Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the State.

6. In  Madan  Mohan  Singh v.  State  of  Gujarat  and  another1 the

deceased was a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised

against performing any stressful duties.  The accused was a superior officer

1 (2010) 8 SCC 628

4

who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when

the  deceased  had  failed  to  comply  with  his  directions.   The  deceased

thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating that the

accused was solely responsible for his death.  In these facts, this Court held

that  there  must  be  allegations  to  the  effect  that  the  accused  had  either

instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with

some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some

way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.  The prayer

for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by this Court and the

proceedings were quashed.

7. At  the  same  time  the  facts  in  Praveen  Pradhan v.  State  of

Uttaranchal  and  another2 show  that  a  junior  officer  was  allegedly

compelled by the superior to indulge in several wrongful  practices at the

work place; the junior officer was not comfortable in complying with such

orders, as a result of which the junior officer was harassed and insulted on

regular intervals and disgraced in front of the staff of the entire factory and

rebuked with comments such as “had there been any other person in his

place  he  would  have  died  by  hanging  himself.”   The  junior  officer

committed  suicide  leaving  behind  a  note  detailing  all  the  incidents  and

2 (2012) 9 SCC 734

5

asserting against his superior.  In these circumstances prayer for quashing

was rejected by this Court.    

8. In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the

material on record.  There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and

the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in

her reporting to the police.  It is true that if a situation is created deliberately

so as to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting

Section  306 IPC.   However,  the  facts  on  record  in  the  present  case  are

completely inadequate and insufficient.  As a superior officer, if some work

was assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot

be said that there was any guilty mind or criminal intent.  The exigencies of

work and  the  situation  may call  for  certain  action  on part  of  a  superior

including stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month.  That action

simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer against such superior officer.

The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the

requirements under Section 306 IPC.   In our view, the facts in the present

case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and

there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC.  We

6

are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings

initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed.   

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash criminal case lodged in

pursuance  of  FIR No.268 of  2017 registered  with  Police  Station  MIDC,

CIDCO, Aurangabad.

…………………..……J. (Arun Mishra)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, May 17, 2018