--

[2011) 3 S.C.R. 437

• A
M. MOHAN
v.
. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011)
B
MARCH 01, 2011

[DALVEER BHANDARI AND SURINDER SINGH

NIJJAR, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8, 498-A and 306 - Dowry C

death, cruelty by husband or relatives of husband and
abetment of suicide - Allegation that the victim was prevented
from using the car owned by her brother-in-law and his wife,
and in this regard was also taunted by the latter - Victim
committing suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial D
house four days later- Victim's husband, 1- rofher-in-law's wife,
and the appellants (two brothers-in-law anci mother-in-law of . \.
the victim), charge sheeted u/ss. 304-B, 498-A and 306 -
Petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellants - Charges ulss.
498-A and 304-B quashed, however, charges u/s 306 upheld E
- On appeal, held: No proximate link between the incident
when the deceased was denied permission to use the car with
the factum of suicide which took place four days later - No
instances of instigation or a/legations against the appellants
- Thus, no offence u/s. 306 made out against the appellants F
and their conviction u/s. 306 not sustainable - High Court not
justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants u/s. 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges u/s. 306 against them -
Charges u/s. 306 against the appellants quashed - Order
passed by the High Court set aside - Code of Criminal G
Procedure, 1973 - s. 482.

The prosecution case was that the victim and her

husband (A-1) stayed in a joint family after their marriage.
A-2 and A-4 are the brothers-in-law of the victim, while A-
437 H
 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.
--
A 5 is the mother-in-law of the victim. A-3 is the wife of A-2.
A-2 and A-3 owned a car. On the fateful day, while the
other members of the family visited the theme park in the
said car, A-1 and the victim were prevented from traveling
in the said car and were instead asked by A-3 to reach
B .the destination by public bus. It is alleged that A-3 taunted
the victim that if she wanted to travel in· car she should
bring a car from her parents. Four days later, the victim
committed suicide by hanging herself In her matrimonial
home. The said i.ncident took place within three and a half
c years of her marriage. The father of the victim filed a
complaint alleging that A-1 and A-3 were responsible for
tlis daughter's suicide. A 1, A 3 and the appellants (A 2,
A 4, A 5) were charge sheeted under Sections 304-B, 498-
A and 306 IPC. The appellants filed a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P .C. for quashing the proceeding against
0
them. The High Court held that no case of dowry demand
was made out against them and quashed the charges
under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC against them but held
that they have to face trial for the offence under Section
E 306 IPC. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant
appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Section 306 IPC deals with 'abetment of

F suicide'. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined
in the Penal Code, 1860 however, its meaning and import
is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means
'self and 'cide' means 'killing', thus, implying an act of
self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must
G commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed
by him in achieving his object of killing himself. In India,
while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the
successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt
to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. [Paras 37,
H 38 and 39] (455-H; 456-B-D]
--
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 439

1.2 Abetment involves a mental process of instigating A

· 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. [Para 45] [458-F-G]
B
1.3 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 deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and
this act must have been intended to push the deceased c
into such a position that he/she committed suicide. [Para
46] [458-G-H; 459-A]
Gangu/a Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2010) 1 SCC 750; Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. D
1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731; Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618; State of West Bengal v. Ori/a/
Jaiswal and Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 73; Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605; V.P.
Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Ors. (2010) 10 E
SCC 361; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
(2010) 8 sec 628 - referred to.
2.1 All the facts clearly show that neither at the time
of inquest nor during the R.D.O. enquiry or at the time of
complaint by the complainant, who is also the father of F
the deceased, any allegation was attributed against the
appellants and, on the contrary, it was the case of the
complainant that allegedly A-3 alone was responsible for
the suicide of the deceased and this formed the basis of
the Single Judge of the High Court to come to the G
conclusion that Sections 304-8 and 498-A IPC are not
attracted. [Para 19] [451-A-B]
2.2 In the instant case, what to talk of existence of
instances or illustrations of instigation, there are no H
 --
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A specific allegations levelled against the appellants. There

is also no proximate link between the incident of
14.1.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to
use the car with the factum of suicide which had taken
place on 18.1.2005. On a careful perusal of the entire
B m:lterial on record, no offence under Section 306 IPC can
be made out against the appellants, In view of the clear
and definite finding that there is no material whatsoever
against the appellants much less positive act on the part
of them to instigate or aid in committing the suicide. The
C criminal proceedings against A-1 and A-3 are pending
adjudication. [Paras 35, 49 and 51) [455-E; 459-0-E-H;
460-A·B]

2.3 The deceased had died because of hanging. The

0 deceased was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen In our day-to-day
life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very
uncommon. Human sensitivity of each Individual differs
from person to person. Each individual has his own idea
E of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave
differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that
such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family.
[Para 50] [459-E-G]

3. The High Court was not justified in rejecting the

F petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the charges under Section 306 IPC against
them. The High Court ought to have quashed the
proceedings so that the appellants who were not remotely
connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC should
G not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a
criminal trial. As a result, the charges under Section 306
IPC against the appellants are quashed. The impugned
judgment is set aside. [Paras 71 and 73] [469-H; 470-A,
H C]
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 441

R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Smt. A

Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors.
(1976) 3 SCC 736; State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy and
Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699; Madhu Limaye v. The State of
Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (1988) B
1 SCC 692; Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1992) 4
SCC 305; Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18;
Lala Jairam Das v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 94; Dr Raghubir
Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336; Connelly v.
Director of Public Prosecutions 1964 AC 1254; Kurukshetra C
University and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (1977) 4 SCC
451; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992)
Suppl.1 SCC 335; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of UP and
Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga
Swamy and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522; Zandu Pharmaceutical D
Worl<s Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. (2005)
1 SCC 122; Devendra and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 495; State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh
and Ors. 2010 (11) SCC 226 - referred to.
E
Case Law Reference:
(2010) 1 sec 150 Re'' ted to Para 17
1995 Supp. (3) sec . Referred to Para 33
c2001) 9 sec 618 Referred to Para 41 F

(1994) 1 sec 73 Referred to Para 43

2009 (16) sec 605 Referred to Para 44
(2010) 10 sec 361 Referred to Para 47 G
(201 O) 8 sec ,628 Referred to Para 48
AIR 1960 SC 866 Relied on Para 53
(1976) 3 sec 736 Relied on Para 54
H
 -
,.__

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A (1977) 2 sec 699 Relied on Para 55

(1977) 4 sec 551 Relied on Para 56

(1988) 1 sec s92 Relied on Para 57

(1992) 4 sec 305 Relied on Para 58
B
AIR 1945 PC 18 Relied on Para 59

AIR 1945 PC 94 Relied on Para 59

(1964) 2 SCR 336 • Relied on Para 60

c Para 62
1964 AC 1254 Referred to
(1977) 4 sec 451 Relied on Para 63
(1992) Suppl.1 SCC 335Relied on Para 64
D (2000) 2 sec 636 Relied on Para 66
(2004J 6 sec 522 Relied on Para 67
(2005) 1 sec 122 Relied on Para 68

E (2009) 1 sec 495 Relied on Para 69

2010 (11) sec 226 Relied on Para 70

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal

No 611of2011.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.02.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai bench in Crl. Original
Petition (MD) No. 10511 of 2005.

WITH
G
Crl. A. No. 612 of 2011.

R. Anand Padmanabha, Prithvi Raj B.N., Elato Aristotal,

Pramod Dayal for the Appellant.
H V. Kanakraj, S. Thananjayan, Vanita Giri for the
--
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 443

Respodent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted in both the
matters.
B
2. Since the facts of both the appeals are common,
therefore, these appeals are decided by a common judgment.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 612 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2687/2010) c

3. We deem it proper to take the facts of Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.2687 of 2010 filed by Velmurugan,
Accused No.4 and Anna Lakshmi, Accused No.5 (for short 'A-
4 and A-5' respectively). This appeal emanates from the o
judgment and order dated 22.02.2010 delivered by the Madurai
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal
Original Petition (MD) No.94 of 2006.
4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal E
are recapitulated as under;
5. One Kamatchi (deceased), daughter of Duraipandi
Nadar (complainant) was married to Anandraj (A-1), son of
Mahalinga Nadar on 6.9.2001. Mahalinga Nadar and his wife
Anna Lakshmi (A-5) had three sons whose names are shown F
as under:
Mahalinga Nadar
----------------------------
Son(A-1) Son(A-2) Son(A-4) G
I I I
Anandraj M. Mohan Velmurugan
Husband of married
deceased to
Kamatchi Easwari (A-3) H
 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A Anand raj (A-1) even after marriage with Kamatchi (the

de~eased)stayed with his two brothers and parents in the joint
family. Kamatchi delivered a female child on ?.1.2003. Accused
Anandraj's elder brother, M. Mohan (A-2) and his wife Easwari
(A-3) owned a Qualis car. On the date of Pongal, i.e., on
8 14.01.2005, Kamatchi's in-laws family planned a visit to the
Theme Park at Madurai from Karaikudi. Deceased Kamatchi,
her husband Anandraj (A-1) were denied the use of the said
family car. Other members of the family had gone to the Theme
Park in the family car whereas the deceased Kamatchi and her
c husband Anandraj (A-1) were told by Easwari (A-3) to reach
the destination by public bus who is alleged to hove said to
Kamatchi that "if you want to go by a car, you have to bring a
car from your family".
6. Kamatchi along with her husband Anandraj and a child,
D took a public transport(bus) from Karaikudi to Madurai for
reaching the said Theme Park and returned to her matrimonial
home in a bus. Kamatchi was deeply hurt by the taunting
statement of Easwari (A-3) regarding denial of the use of family
car.
E
7. Immediately thereafter, Kamatchi demanded a car from
her father for personal use and after four days, i.e., on
18.1.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. she committed suicide by hanging
herself in her bedroom using her sari.
F 8. On receipt of the information, the father of the deceased
Kamatchi reached Karaikudi and filed a complaint with the
Karaikudi Police Station (South) at about 5.00 p.m. alleging that
his son-in-law Anandraj (A-1) and his elder brother's wife
Easwari (A-3) were responsible for his daughter's suicide. On
G receipt of the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi (South) Police Station registered a case under
Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short
'Cr.P.C.') by assigning Crime No.13/2005 on 18.01.2005.

H
--
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 445
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
9. The Sub Inspector of Police forwarded a copy of the A
First Information Report (for short 'F.l.R.') to the Revenue
Divisional Officer (for short 'R.D.0.') to hold an inquest and also
a copy to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short
'D.S.P.'), Karaikudi, for further investigation, who commenced
inquiry on the same day as Kamatchi had committed suicide B
within three and a half years of her marriage.

10. The D.S.P., Karaikudi on receipt of the F.l.R. from the

Karaikudi South Police Station, took up the complaint for
investigation and filed an Alteration Report on 19.1.2005 before
the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Karaikudi under Sections 498-A C
and 306 l.P.C. against Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3)
respectively.
11. The R.D.O. commenced enquiry on 18.1.2005 and
examined many witnesses and on 3rd February, 2005 a report D
was sent by him to the D.S.P. in which he had categorically
stated that there was no dowry harassment in the suicide case,
especially in view of the fact that even the parents of the
deceased had not informed him about the harassment of dowry.
The parents of the deceased had specifically stated before the E
R.D.O. that because of the taunts made by Easwari (A-3) their
daughter had committed suicide. The D.S.P., in addition to the
inquest held by the R.D.0., proceeded to investigate the case
and filed a Charge Sheet on 29.4.2005 not only against
Anandraj (A-1), the deceased's husband and M. Mohan (A-2), F
her brother-in-law and his wife, Easwari (A-3), but also against
the appellants herein who are elder brother of the husband of
the deceased and the mother of appellant No.1 respectively
under Sections 304-8, 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short '1.P.C.'). A copy of the charge sheet dated 29.4.2005 G
was tl:~d before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.
12. The learned Magistrate, on perusing the final report,
took the same on file by assigning P.R.C.No.11/2005 and
summoned the accused to furnish copies before committing the
case to the Court of Sessions for ,, .di. H
 -
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A 13. The appellants, aggrieved by the vexatious prosecution

initiated at the behest of the respondent approached the High
Court of Judicature at Madras for quashing the proceedings
against them under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Single
Judge, while quashing the charges under Sections 498-A and
B 304-B 1.P.C. against the appellants, partly allowed their petition
and held that they have to face trial for the offence under Section
306 l.P.C. insofar as challenge to Section 306 l.P.C. was
concerned.

14. The High Court in the impugned judgment observed

C that in the F.l.R. lodged by the complainant, no whisper of
demand for dowry has been made against the appellants. A
perusal of the F.l.R. would reveal that Anandraj (A-1) and
Easwari, A-3 were torturing the deceased on some pretext or
the other especially in connection with getting a car from her
D father. The deceased was denied use of the car for going to
the Theme Park near Madurai on 14.01.2005. The deceased
was also abused by Anandraj (A-1) in this regard. They had to
go to the Theme Park at Madurai by bus. After returning, the
dee.eased contacted her father on phone and narrated the
E entire incident and on 18.1.2005 at around 1.30 p.m., Kamatchi
committed suicide by hanging herself. On registration of the
case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the complainant and his wife
and others
..... were examined. Even in the statement, the
complainant had not made a whisper about the demand of
F dowry on the part of the appellants but harped upon the ill
treatment to his daughter at the hands of Anandraj (A-1) and
Easwari (A-3). Even at the inquest conducted by the R.D.O.,
the complainant has not even whispered with regard to the
demand of dowry on the part of the appellants. The statement
G of witnesses including that of the complainant were recorded
on 27.01.2005. The relevant portion of the exact version given
in the F.l.R. reads as under :

"..... My eldest daughter is aged about 21 years. She was

given in marriage by me to one Anandaraj son of
H
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 447
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Mahalinga Nadar of Karaikudi 3 years ago in the year A
2002,. and next daughter was given in marriage at
Coimbatore and other two daughters are yet to be married.
At the time of marriage of my daughter Kamatchi, to
Anandraj, I gave them one Kilo of Gold, Diamonds and
jewels, and other utensils and articles. They were living 8
along with his elder brother Mohan as joint family. They
possess one Qualis car of their own. The said car was
purchased in the name of Easwari my son-in-law's
brother's wife. My daughter felt very hurt when she was not
allowed to use the said car and was taunted by my son- C
in-law Anandraj and Mohan's wife Easwari to get a car
from her parental home if she wished to go by a car. When
she disclosed this matter to me I was ready to give her a
car. At this junction, during last Pongal festival, her family
had gone to Madurai ('Athisayam') in the said Qualis car.
They refused to take my daughter along with them in the
0
said car, and they have also teased and insulted her and
told her to come in the bus and also said 'do you want to
use a car then why you did not get a car'. My daughter
informed about this incident to me over the phone and
before I could get a car ready for her today on 18.1.2005, E
at about 1.30 hours, my son-in-law, Anandraj, informed over
phone that my daughter had hanged herself and is dead.
My son-in-law Anandraj and Mohan's wife Easwari who
were cause for my daughter's death ..... "
F
The above quoted portion of the F.l.R. also indicates that all
allegations are confined to Anand raj (A-1 ), the husband of the
deceased and his sister-in-law, Easwari (A-3). According to the
appellants, from the entire material available on record, by no
stretch of imaglnation, an offence under Section 3061.P.C. was G
made out against the appellants and the impugned judgment
of the High Court is contrary to the law as has been laid down
by this court in a series of judgments.

15. According to the appellants, the High Court in the

H
 --
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. ·

A impugned judgment has seriously erred in not quashing the

charge under Section 306 l.P.C. despite the fact that there is
absolutely no material on record to proceed against the
appellants either for cruelty or for dowry harassment.

16. The appellants contended that the learned Single

8 Judge, after examining the F.1.R., R.D.O. report and Statements
of the Witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. found that there
were no allegations against the appellants herein from the
inception either by the complainant or by the mother of the
deceased and has further held that there was no element of
C dowry related harassment and/or any cruelty meted out to the
deceased by her sister-in-law or for that matter by anv of the
accused. In view of the above categorical findings, the learned
Single Judge quashed the charges under Sections 304-B and
498-A l.P.C. However, the learned Single Judge failed to
D appreciate that on the t·3sis of the material available on record
and in the absence of any allegation, if no offence is made out
against the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498-A, then
the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 3061.P.C. It
is stated that to attract the provisions of Section 306 1.P.C., the
E allegations as to the existence of cruelty, dowry harassment and
abetment to suicide are all integrated. In absence of any
allegations under Sections 498-A and 304-B l.P.C. provisions
of Section 306 l.P .C. cannot be attracted.
F 17. The appellants submitted that this Court in the case of
Gangula Mohan Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh one of
us, Dalveer Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment),
reported in (2010)(1) SCC 750, while interpreting Section 306
l.P.C. held that abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of
G a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, there cannot be any
conviction. It was further held that to attract Section 306 l.P.C.
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is
further stated that the present case is squarely covered by the
H
- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 449
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
above decision as even if the case of the prosecution is taken A
to be true and the finding of the High Court that there are no
elements of cruelty or dowry related harassment and that the
witnesses have improved upon their earlier statements is
ignored, then also Section 3061.P.C .. is not attracted in the facts
of the present case. .B

18. According to the appellants, the present case is a fit

case wherein the charges under Section 306 1.P.C. are liable
to be quashed for the following sequence of events and
reasons:
c
"On 06.09.2002, Kamatchi, (the deceased in the case) got
married to Anandaraj (A-1). After the marriage they lived
with two other brothers of the Al and the parent in laws
jointly. Deceased is stated to have had cordial relations
with every member of the family. D
On 7 .1.2003, Anandaraj (A-1) and Kamatchi were blessed
with one female child. The child was christened as
Nithyasree.

On 14.1.2005, the entire family decided to go to E

'Adisayam' a Theme park at Madurai to celebrate and
enjoy the Pongal Holidays. Kamatchi was prevented from
travelling in a Qualis car by Easwari (A-3) and is alleged
to have taunted Kamatchi, "if you want to travel by a car
please get a car from your parents". Thereafter, leaving F
Anandaraj, Kamatchi and their child, they proceeded to
Madurai to visit the Theme Park 'Adisayam' by a Qualis
car.
Anandaraj and his family also proceeded to Madurai to G
visit the Theme Park and after their visit they returned to
their native Karaikudi. Both to and fro, the family traveled
by bus.

On 18.01.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. Kamatchi committed

H
 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.
--
A suicide at her matrimonial home, using her sari to hang
herself.
At about 5.00 p.m. Mr.Duraipandi Nadar, the father of the
deceased Kamatchi lodged a complaint before Karaikudi
B South Police Station. It is the specific allegation in the
complaint that A1 and A3 alone are the cause of the
suicide of his daughter.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

Registered the said complaint by assigning Cr.No.13/
c 2005.
At about 6.00 p.m. R.D.O. conducted an enqury and
prepared and Mahazar and seized the diary of the
deceased, a letter and the sari which was used by her
D commit suicide.
D.S.P. Karaikudi, examined S.V.Duraipandi, the father of
the deceased (L.W.1) and recorded his statement.
D.S.P. Karaikudi examined Mrs.Tamil Selvi, the mother of
E the deceased (L.W.2).

On 19.01.2005 alteration report filed by the D.S.P. under

Section 306 and 498 A IPC against A-1 and A-3 alone.

On 3.2.2005 RDO who commenced enquiry from the date

F of incident itself and examined the records and the
statements of various witnesses. He filed a report with a
recommendation from the D.S.P. to conduct further
investigation to determine the real reasons for the suicide
with a specific finding that the suicide death is not due to
G any dowry harassment. R.D.O. has also recorded the
statement of the de facto complainant and the mother of
the deceased to the effect that the deceased was having
a very cordial relationship with every one in the family
including the husband except the A-3 the second daughter
H in law".
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 451
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
19. All these facts would clearly show and demonstrate that A
neither at the time of inquest nor during the R.D.O. enquiry or
.at the time of the complaint by the complainant, who is also the
father of the deceased, any allegation was attributed against
the appellants and, on the contrary, it was the case of the
complainant that allegedly Easwari {A-3) alone was responsible 8
for the suicide of the deceased and this formed the basis of
the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that
Sections 304-B and 498-A-l.P.C. are not attracted.

20. The appellants submitted that there is no allegation

against the appellants Velmurugan and Anna Lakshmi, who are C
arrayed as Accused 4 and 5 respectively in the final report
either at the time of lodging of the complaint and registration
of FIR or at the time of inquest enquiry or even in the statements
before the R.D.O. On the contrary the complainant has alleged
that it is only Easwari {A-3) who is the cause of the suicide. It D
may be relevant to extract certain portions of the F.l.R., R.D.O.
Report and the Alteration Report filed by the respondent.
21. In the R.D.O. Report dated 3.2.2005, the following.
statement of the complainant is extracted : E
"My son-in-law Thiru M.Anandraj is running a provision
shop at Karaikudi of his own. In that his brother Mohan is
also having a share. My son-in-law looked after my
daughter in good manner. All of them in their house
treated my daughter in a good way. He informed that F
Smt.Eswari, wife of Mohan alone used to quarrel with my
daughter often. Due to her torture alone my daughter might
have hanged herself and.committed suicide. In the death,
apart from Smt.Eswari, he informed that no other is having
any part. He has also stated that there is no dowry G
harassment in the death. {emphasis added)"
22. Again in the said Report the R.D.O. concludes as
under: ·
H
 --
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A "From the inquest it can be found that the death did not
happen due to dowry harassment. The reason is that even
the father anc! mother of the deceased girl said the death
has not happened due to dowry harassment. Therefore, I
inform that the death is not caused due to dowry
B harassment. Further, the father and mother of the
deceased girl said that the death is caused due to the
torture of Smt.Easwari. Therefore, the police may take up
the case for investigation and on proper investigation the
cause for the death may be found out."
c 23. Again in the Alteration Report by 'D.S.P.', the following
is recorded :

"It is found that the deceased Kamatchi committed suicide

only due to the harassment by her husband Anandaraj and
D his elder brother's wife Eswari often demanding car as
dowry from her parents."

24. Again in the F.l.R. the only allegation is that:

"My son-in-law Anandraj and Easwari, wife of Mohan have

E abetted my daughter Kamatchi to commit suicide. They
are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore, I
request that action may be taken against Anandaraj and
Easwari alone for the death of my daughter."

F 25. The appellants also submitted that the entire case of

the prosecution does not reveal even remote connection of the
appellants with the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 306 l.P.C.
26. The case of the prosecution is that on 14th
G January,2005, the deceased wanted to use the family car to
go to the Theme Park at Madurai from Karaikudi along with
other family members but she was denied the permission to
use the car. At that juncture Easwari (A-3) taunted the
deceased that if she wanted to go around in a car, she has to
get a car from her parents. These words deeply hurt the
--
M. MOHAN v.STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 453
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
deceased and she had committed suicide on 18th A
January,2005 at 1.30 p.m. at her matrimonial home.

27. The appellants submitted that even if the prosecution

story that she was denied permission to use the car on 14th
January, 2005 and the suicide had taken place on 18th January, 8
2005 is believed, it cannot be said that the suicide by the
deceased was the direct result of the expressions exchanged .
between the deceased and Easwari (A-3) on 14th January,
2005. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently,
still the ingredients of the "abetment" are totally absent in the C
case at hand. In these facts and circumstances, to compel the
appellants to face the rigmarole of a trial would be an abuse
of law.

28. The appellants also submitted that there is no material

on record to proceed against the appellants for an offence D
punishable under Section 306 l.P .C. No conviction can be
recorded in absence of legal evidence. According to the
appellants, any further proceeding in this case will be an abuse
of the process. According to them, this is a fit case warranting
interference by this Court. E

29. The appellants contended that the genesis of the

prosecution is on the basis of the complaint preferred by the
father of the deceased Kamatchi. He had categorically stated
that his daughter had committed suicide due to the taunts of
Easwari (A-3). According to the complainant, his son-in-law, F
Anandraj (A-1) and the said Easwari (A-3) alone were
responsible for the death of his daughter.

30. The appellants also contended that in pursuance to that

complaint, the R.D.O. held an inquest by examining few G
witnesses including the father, the mother and the brother-in-
law (sister's husband) of the deceased and others. In their
statements, none of them had stated any dowry harassment
again~t the accused or any other member of the family of the
accused. On the contrary, they have categorically stated that H
 --
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A there was no dowry harassment suffered by the deceased in

her in-law's house. Thus, the requirement to bring home the
ingredient of the offence Under Section 304-B l.P.C., namely,
the 'dowry' demand as found by the learned Single Judge was
absent in the prosecution case. They contended that the High
B Court has held that no allegation of cruelty against the
appellants were found from the very inception and the charge
under Section 498-A was liable to be quashed. In this
background, by no stretch of imagination, the appellants can
ever be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
c 31. The appellants submitted that the summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that
the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support
allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into
D motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature
of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both
oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be
E sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing home the
charge against the accused? It is not that the Magistrate is a
silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence
before the summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may
F even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses
to elicit answers to point out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused.
G 32. The appellants submitted that the prosecution must
produce evidence before the Court, which is capable of being
converted into legal evidence after the charges are framed. In
this case admittedly, there is no legal evidence connecting the
appellants with any crime, much less the offences alleged, as
H the materials are not capable of being converted into legal
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 455
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

evidence. Hence, in the absence of any material which can be A

converted into legal evidence, the proceedings as against the
appellants under Section 306 IPC are also liable to be quashed.

33. The appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of

this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 8
Supp. (3) sec 731. In this case the allegations levelled were
as under:-

"My mot~er-in-law and husband and sister-in-law

(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat
me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry C
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."

34. This Court while acquitting the appellant observed that o

neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
statement of the deceased.

35. In the instant case, what to talk of existence of instances

or illustrations of instigation, there are no specific allegations
levelled against the appellants. On a careful perusal of the entire E
material on record, no offence under Section 306 IPC can be
made out against the appellants, in view of our clear and
definite finding that there is no material whatsoever against the
appellants much less positive act on the part of the appellants
to instigate or aid in committing the suicide. F

36. The main substantial questions of law which arise in

this appeal are whether the conviction of the appellants under
Section 306 l.P.C. is sustainable and whether in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the High Court was justified in not G
quashing the proceedings against the appellants under its
inherent powers.

37. We would like to deal with the concept of 'abetment'.

Section 306 of the Code deals with 'abetment of suicide' which
reads as under: H
 --
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A "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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
B
38. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the
Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self and 'cide'
means 'killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a
person committing suicide must commit it by himself,
C irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his
object of killing himself.

39. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence

considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach
D of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of
1.P.C.

40. 'Abetment of a thing' has been defined under section

107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section
E 107, 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

F
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 places in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
G Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any a.ct or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section

107 reads as under:
H
--
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 457
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
"Explanation 2 -Whoever, either prior to or at the time of A
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
41. Learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another B
judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which a three-Judge Bench
of this court had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar
nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the
appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish C
and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant
Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. This Court in paragraph 20
has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation'.
Para 20 reads as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or D
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 E
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 F
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. n

42. In the said case this court came to the conclusion that G
there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom
an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted
commission of suicide by Seema (appellant's wife therein) may
necessarily be drawn.
H~
 --
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A 43. In State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal & Another

(1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the
trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to
B . the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing
suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to
which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
c difference. were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing
a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.
D 44. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) sec 605, had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court
opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or
E encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's
suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person
has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it
is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of
F its own facts and circumstances.
45. 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
G or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. 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
H act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
--
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 459
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
and this act must have been intended to push the deceased A
into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
47. In V.P. Shn'vastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and
Others (201 O} 10 SCC 361, this court has held that when prima
facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High
8
Court ought to ha've exercised the jurisdiction under section 482
of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint.

48. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Madan

Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2010 ) 8 SCC 628,
. this Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on C
the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and
observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the
proceedings:
49. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of D
instigation, there are even no allegations against the
appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident
of 14.1.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to
use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken
place ().n 18.1.2005.
E
50. Undou!:tedly, the deceased· had 'died because of
hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord an~ di~erences wh,ich happen in
our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are
not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs F
from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in
the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of
suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains
to be answered is whether the appellants can be connected G
with that unfortunate incident in any manner?
51. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record
and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can
safely arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even H
 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 3 S.C.R.
--
A remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 of the
l.P.C .. It may be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings
against husband of the deceased Anand raj (A-1) and Easwari
(A-3) are pending adjudication.

52. Next question which arises in this case is that in view

8
of the settled legal position whether the High Court ought to
have quashed the proceedings under its inherent power under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the facts and
circumstances of this case?

C 53. This Court had an occasion to examine the legal

position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court summarized some
categories of cases where the High Court _in its inherent power
can and should exercise to quash the proceedings:
D
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the
proceedings;

(ii) whe1 ·: '· ,: "!!0gations in the first information report

E or c0r: ·i-··;1.1t taken at their face value and accepted
in the ' 1 -:;ntirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but

F there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
54. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konja/gi
and Others (1976) 3 sec 736, according to the court, the
G process against the accused can be quashed or set aside :
"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of
the same taken at their face value make out
H absolutely no case against the accused or the
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] .
461

complaint does not disclose tnl:t essential A

ingredients of an offence which is alleged against
the accused;

(2)where the allegations made in the. complaint are

patently absurd and inherently improbable so that 8
no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the .
accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in

issuing process is capricious and· arbitrary having C
been based either on no evidence or on materials
which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal

defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of D
a complaint by legally competent authority and the
like".
55. This court in State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy &
Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome
power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to E
quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, F
to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment
or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must
be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. G
This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent
cases of this court and other courts.
56. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977)
4 SCC 551, a three-Judge Bench of thi!=: court held as under:- H
 --
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A "..... In case the impugned order clearly brings out a

situation which is an abuse of the process of the court, or
for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference
by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing
contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise
B of the inherent power by the High Court. Such cases would
·necessarily be few and far between. One such case would
be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding
initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without
jurisdiction. The present case would undoubtedly fall for
c exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with
Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the
invoking of the revisional power of the High Cour+ is
impermissible."

57. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others

D v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC
692, observed in para 7 as under:

"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution

at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
E applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It
is also for the court to take into consideration any special
features which appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to
F permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis
that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose
and where in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into
G
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the
proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

58. In Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992) 4

sec 305 the court observed as under :
H
-- . M. MOHAN v.STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 463
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
"131. Section 482 which corresponds to Section A
561-A of the old Code and to Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code proceeds on the same principle and
deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. The rule
of inherent powers has its source in the maxim "Quadolex
aliquid a!icui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo ipsa, B
ei:;s uon potest" which means that when the law gives
anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without
which the thing itself could not exist.

132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent

power to make such orders as may be necessary for the C
ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and
·undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily
exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases,
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers D
possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles." E

59. In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18

and Lala Jairam Das v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 94 the Judicial
Committee has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old
Code which is equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. gave F
no new powers but only provided that already inherently
possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till
date.

60. In Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR

336, this court observed as under G

• ... [E]very High Court as the highest court exercising

criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make
any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice
.... Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be H
 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.
--
A pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by
a subordinate court of its powers ... ."

61. In the said case, the court also observed that the
·· inherent powers can be exercised under this section by the High
Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code;
8
(2) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (3) otherwise
to secure the ends of justice.

62. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964

AC 1254, Lord Ried at page 1296 expressed his view "there
C must always be a residual discretion to prevent anything which
savours of abuse of process" with which view all the members
of the House of Lords agreed but differed as to whether \11is
entitled a Court to stay a lawful prosecution.

0 63. In Kurukshetra University and Another v. State of

Haryana and Another (1971) 4 sec 451, this court observed
as under:

"Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on

the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That
E statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Thus, the
High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section
482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot quash a first
information report more so when the police had not even
F commenced the investigation and no proceeding at all is
pending in any Court in pursuance of the said FIR."

64. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others

reported in (1992) Suppl.1 sec p.335, this court had an
G occasion to examine the scope of the inherent power of the High
Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the
police and laid down the following rule: [SCC pp. 364-65, para
60: SCC (Cri) p. 456, para 60).

"The sum and substance of the above deliberation results

H in a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the
-
__..
M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF' POLICE 465
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose A
powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power 'to
investigate into the cogni~able offences is legitimately
exercised in strict compliance with .the provisions falling
under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not
justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the . B
investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds
as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the
scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a
Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police·
investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the c
actual investigation or to direct the police how that
investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer
transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and
illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any
statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the · 0
personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court
on being approached by the person aggrieved for the
redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and
extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may
be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of E
. police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our
Constitution." ·

65. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others

(supra), this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under F
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 of the Constitution of
India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave
the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein G
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
pro.cess of.the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Thus, this court made it clear that 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 H
 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R.
--
A exhaustive list to 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 prirna facie
B
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
c 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.

D (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

E cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

F (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 grounds for proceeding against the
accused.
G (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 proceedings 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,
H
-- M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 467
. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
providing .efficacio1,1s redress for the grievance of the . A
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
' instituted ~th an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance 8
on the accused and wit~ a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
· 66. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others
(2000) 2 SCC 636, this Court observed that it is the duty and
obligation of the criminaLcourt to exercise a great deal of C
caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are
essentially of civil in nature.
67. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Unga Swamy and Another
(2004) 6 sec 522; this court observed as under:- D
"Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a
case of this nature is the 'exception and not the rule. The
section does not confer any new powers on the High Court.
It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed
before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three E
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the
Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the proGess of court, and (iii)
· to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible
nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would F
govern the exercise of inherent juri5diction. No legislative
enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all
cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which
are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties G
imposed upon them by law. That is the d9gtrine which finds
expression· in the section which merely recognizes and
preserves inherent powers of the High C~1,1rts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any
express-provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such H
 --
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a

wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle
quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine
quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a
person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot
B exist). While exercising powers under the section, the
Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
c down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist. Authority ·of the
court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice,
the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an
D
abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of
E
these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the
court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint
is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and
F whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
68. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. &
Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC
G 122, observed thus:-
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion
of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/
H
-
__.

M. MOHAN v. STATE TR. DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE 469

. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
continuance ofit amounts to abuse of the process of court A
or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the B
complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made
out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

69. In Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another (2009) 7 sec 495, this court observed as under:-
c
"There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned
propositions of law. However, it is now well settled that the
High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the
· allegations made in the first information report, even if D
given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety,
do not make out any offence. When the allegations made
in the first information report or the evidences collected
during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an
offence, the superior courts would not encourage E
harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing."

70. In State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others

2010 (11) sec 226, this court observed that the power under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is vide and they
require care and caution in its exercise. The interference must F
be on sound principle and the inherent power should not l;>e
exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution. The court further·
observed that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by
the Magistrate, it is up to the High Court to quash the same in G
exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Code.
71. In the light of the settled legal position, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting
the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the H
 --
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 3 S~C.R.

A Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges under Section 306 l.P.C.

against them. The High Court ought to have quashed the
proceedings so that the appellants who were not remotely
connected with the offence under Section 3061.P.C. should not
have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial.
B
72. As a result, the charges under Section 306 l.P.C.
against the appellants are quashed.
73. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and
the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.2687
C of 2010 filed by the appellants is allowed and disposed of.
Crl.Appeal No. 611 of 2011 (arising out. of SLP Crl.)
No.2550/2010)

74. In view of the decision in Criminal Appeal arising out

· D of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2687 of 2010, this appeal
is also allowed and disposed of.
N.J. Appeals allowed.