VIKAS CHANDRA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223 · Decided: 22-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223 : 2024 INSC 261
Vikas Chandra 
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024)
22 February 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondent No.2 was summoned to face the trial for the offence 
under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether 
justified in quashing the summons. 
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – When not 
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 204 – Case of the 
appellant was that his father committed suicide by consuming 
poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj where he was 
working, leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for 
the same on respondent No.2 – Deceased was earlier working 
in Mandi Samiti, Puwaya as Security Guard and the respondent 
No.2 was the then Secretary of the Mandi Samiti – Complaint 
stated that the salary of the deceased for few months was 
unpaid and when he requested for its release on 12.10.2004, 
respondent No.2 uttered instigative words abetting him to 
commit suicide – High Court quashed the summons issued to 
respondent No.2 to face the trial u/s.306, IPC – Correctness:
Held: There was no explicit or implicit reference in the so-
called suicide note dated 23.10.2004 about any occurrence on 
12.10.2004 involving the deceased and the respondent No.2 as 
alleged by the complainant – There was no proximity between the 
alleged occurrence of utterance of the so-called instigative words 
on 12.10.2004 and the commission of suicide by the deceased 
inasmuch as it was committed only on 23.10.2004 – It is also 
undisputed that at the time of the commission of suicide, the 
deceased was not working in the office of Mandi Samiti, Puwaya 
where the respondent No.2 was working as Secretary and when 
the former committed the suicide he was attached to the office 
of the Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad and was working in Sub-Mandi, 
Alhaganj – High Court rightly held that the so-called suicide note 
1224
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
did not reveal and reflect that the victim was disturbed on account 
of non-receipt of salary and for that reason, he was bent upon to 
commit suicide – Though it stated that the respondent No.2 was 
responsible for his suicide however, there was absolute absence of 
any material or even a case in the complaint and in the so-called 
suicide note that the respondent No.2 abetted the late deceased 
in a manner that will attract the provisions u/s.107, IPC – There 
is absolute absence of any allegation of continued course of 
conduct on the part of the respondent No.2 with a view to create 
circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option except 
to commit suicide – In such circumstances, the mere statement in 
suicide note dated 23.10.2004, that respondent No.2, Secretary, 
Mandi Samiti, Puwaya will be responsible for his suicide would not 
be a ground at all to issue summons to the respondent No.2 to 
face the trial for the offence u/s.306, IPC – Issuance of summons 
is a serious matter and shall not be done mechanically – It shall be 
done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further 
in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials 
collected during the inquiry – Impugned judgment of High Court 
does not suffer from any legal infirmity, illegality or perversity, 
warranting any interference. [Paras 13, 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 204 – Summons 
issued by Magistrate, interference with in exercise of power 
u/s.482:
Held: Sine qua non for exercise of the power u/s.204, to issue 
process is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of 
sufficient ground for proceeding – Issuance of summons is a serious 
matter and, therefore, shall not be done mechanically – It shall be 
done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further 
in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials 
collected during the inquiry – A petition filed u/s.482, for quashing 
an order summoning the accused is maintainable – Once it is held 
that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is 
the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” 
while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons 
issued by a Magistrate, it is the duty of the Court to look into the 
question as to whether the Magistrate applied his mind to form 
an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.