IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.515-516 OF 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 6453-54 of 2015)
MUNSHIRAM …APPELLANT (S)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and
order, dt. 15.04.2015, passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2372 of 2014 and
3508 of 2014, wherein the High Court quashed the FIR No.
318 of 2013 filed under Section 306 of IPC.
3. Before we analyse the case at hand, it would be necessary to
observe the facts of this case which gave rise to the
aforesaid FIR. The deceased son of the Appellant herein
(Brijesh Singh) got married to Respondent no. 2 – wife
(Khushboo) on 10.2.2008. From the aforesaid wedlock, the
couple were blessed with a male child on 29.10.2009. It is to
be noted that the wife on previous occasions had filed
multiple complaints against her husband which were
ultimately compromised. Moreover, the husband had also
filed a complaint dt. 13.7.2010 alleging atrocities committed
by her and her family on the deceased and his family. On
7.03.2013, Respondent- wife instituted another proceeding
against the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was
under a constant fear of arrest and harassment because of
false implication in criminal case. Thereafter a compromise
is said to have been entered into between the deceased and
the respondent – wife, wherein he had promised not to
repeat any of the aforesaid occurrences. Thereafter,
Respondent again filed an FIR No. 152 of 2013 against the
deceased and the Petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 341
and 351 of IPC. It may not be out of context to mention here
that the Respondent – wife also filed a domestic violence
case against the deceased son of the appellant. It is alleged
that on 8.7.2013, due to continuous humiliation and
suffering inflicted upon by the wife and the accused
persons, the Appellant’s son (Brijesh Singh) committed
suicide. Before committing the suicide, the deceased is said
to have written two suicide notes which needs to be
Suicide Note 1
My wife Khushboo and his parents and family members
since after marriage are threatening me and my family
saying that we are dacoits and we will kill you and also
have filed false cases of dowry and domestic violence. My
wife Khushboo has got an illicit relation with Rajkumar
the 2nd son of SI Gajadhar living in her neighbourhood
and Rajesh Aggarwal and son of Fawji and others also
keep on facilitating / helping them.
My wife, my in-laws and these boys are intending to grab
the factory and house of my parents, this is why they
keep on torturing us and do not allow me and my parents
to meet my son. Me and my parents are in deep agony
since after my marriage. The total investment in the
factory is done by my father and I have not contributed
any penny. I love my wife and my child very much but
she do not have any affection either for me and my
parents so, her parents keep on threatening us and keep
on filing false complaint and are trying to grab the house
and factory by implicating my parents and my sister in
false cases (sic)
Suicide Note 2
My wife Khushboo under the influence of Rajkumar the
nd son of SI Gajodhar living in her neighbourhood,
Rajesh Aggarwal, her parents and other in-laws has got
filed a false case against me, my parents and my sisters.
Due to which I am in deep mental stress. I am
committing suicide. All these are conspiring to grab the
house and factory of my parents. My parents are old and
they may kindly be helped. The complete investment in
the factory is done by my father after his retirement. I do
not have any contribution in it. My wife wants to flee
away to Delhi after grabbing all these and every day she
keeps abusing us and also threatens to get us killed. She
does not let us meet my son. I have always loved my wife.
She has always betrayed me. She may be removed from
the house of my parents. Safety of my parents be ensured
4. In this context an FIR was lodged by the appellant under
Section 306 of IPC against the Respondent-wife and her
family members alleging that they harassed his son which
ultimately lead to him committing suicide.
5. On 11.03.2014, the Police reported to the trial court,
wherein it was stated that the suicide notes were found to
be matching the handwriting of the deceased as reported by
forensic science laboratory.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR being registered against the
accused Respondents, they filed a petition under Section
482 of CrPC before the High Court for quashing of the FIR
No. 318 of 2013 for the offences of abetment to suicide
under Section 306 of IPC.
7. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dt.
15.04.2015, quashed the aforesaid FIR on the ground that
the alleged offence of abetment of suicide was not made out
in this case. It would be relevant to note the reasoning of
the High Court before we further proceed with the
discussion of this case:
a. That the Court was of the opinion that the suicide
notes makes reference to various litigation and
criminal complaints which were a result of actions of
the deceased and were not filed with a view to harass
b. The allegation concerning the adultery by the
respondent – wife has not been evidenced by any
material on record.
c. The bad behaviour and alcoholism of the deceased has
been categorically admitted in the compromise
d. That the allegations contained in the suicide note did
not reveal the ingredients of abetment or instigation of
e. That there is nothing to show the intention of the
accused to instigate or abet the deceased to commit
f. That the suicide notes admit depression on the part of
the deceased so as to commit suicide.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the father of the deceased
(appellant herein) approached this Court through this
Special Leave Petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has vehemently contended that the quashing of the FIR at
the threshold level without allowing the police to investigate
the matter cannot be sustained as it was pre-mature. He
has further relied on the status report as well as the FSL
report to portray that there was a prima facie case for
continuing the investigation.
10. Per contra, the counsel on behalf of the respondents has
supported the impugned judgment and contended that the
suicide was the deceased’s own doing and the respondents
in both cases were beyond any blame as the litigation
foisted upon the deceased were solely attributable to his
own actions and behaviour.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
perusing the material available on record we are of the
opinion that the High Court has prematurely quashed the
FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the
Police. Further, it is no more res integra that Section 482 of
CrPC has to be utilized cautiously while quashing the FIR.
This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it
comes to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such
cases would only amount to abuse of the process. In this
case at hand, the court abridged the investigation which
needed to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the
FIR concerning the existence or non-existence of any prior
mental condition of the deceased prior to the commission of
12. We are apprised of the FSL report which categorically states
that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as
present in the suicide note has similarities. Further, the
status report filed before the High Court notes as under:
During investigation, after receiving information of the
deceased Brijesh Singh from the hospital and after
recording death FIR 15/13 under section 174 CrPC,
investigation was started. Handwriting was recovered
from the place of incident during inspection, which was
identified by the complainant as the handwriting of his
son and same was taken into custody. Statements under
section 161 CrPC of complainant Munshi Ram, witnesses
Sh. Ajay Kumar, Hakam Singh, Smt. Ombati, Smt.
Rekha, Smt. Meena, Smt. Pushpa, and Sh. Sher Singh
were recorded. Thereafter, Munshi Ram got registered FIR
No. 318/2013. The post-mortem and panchayatnama of
the deceased was done and during this, written unsigned
note was recovered from the half pant of the deceased
and the same was also taken into possession. The
post-mortem of the dead body of the victim was
conducted. The clothes worn by the deceased were taken
into custody and the dead body was handed over to the
family members for last rites. On 3.8.2013, the file was
forwarded to Ld. ACC, Sadar for further investigation who
sent the suicide note to FSL for examination. Call details
of the suspect were obtained and on 17.2.2014, the main
file was entrusted to Ld. AACP, Vaishali Nagar. FSL
Report with regard to suicide note was obtained by him.
On 18.2.2014, case file was sent to Deputy Commissioner
for further investigation who took statements of Smt.
Shrawni Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Kalawati, Smt.
Radha Agarwal, Smt. Manju Chowdhary, Shri Deepakshi
@ Charu, Shri Harish Agarwal under section 161 CrPC.
Based on the investigation carried out as per the order no
8225-27 of DCP in case no 318/13 by the Deputy
Commissioner and based on the evidence available on
record, it is established that Accused persons (1)
Khushboo (2) Dharampal (3) Smt. Sushila (4) Hawa Singh
have committed offence under section 306 IPC. Accused
Smt. Khushboo W/o Brijesh Singh D/o Dharampal Singh
caste Bawaria, Age 25 years, Sushila W/o Shri
Dharampal Singh caste Bawaria, Age 43 years and
Dharampal Sing S/o late Shri Ram Singh caste Bawaria,
Age 45 years were arrested in this case.
Accused Hawa Singh could not be arrested since he
was absconding and since 8.8.2014, the Hon’ble High
Court has stayed the investigation.
The Status Report of facts is being sent to you.
13. In light of the fact that the enquiry was pending and there
are aspects which may require investigation, we are of the
considered opinion that the High Court erred in quashing
the FIR at the threshold itself without allowing the
investigation to proceed. We cannot agree with the reasons
provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain
factual assertions made by the Respondents as to the
condition of the deceased and reasons for committing
suicide because acceptance of the said would not be in
consonance with the settled jurisprudence under Section
482 of CrPC as laid down by various judgments of this
14. It would be relevant to note that any observation made
herein should not be taken as observations on merits and
we direct the investigative authority as well as the court to
consider the matter on its own merits uninfluenced by any
15. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and direct
the investigative authorities to complete the investigation
with promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed.
(N. V. RAMANA)
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
APRIL 09, 2018