Veena Chawla & Ors. vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioners did not press the petition at that stage and sought liberty to pursue their remedies as available in law. The Court treated the petition as a representation to the police and directed the concerned DCP to consider it. The DCP was scheduled to interact with the petitioners on October 16, 2018, at 11:30 a.m. Any action taken was to be intimated to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioners had any grievance, they could recourse to legal remedies available in law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the allegations or the entitlement to an FIR, as the petition was not pressed.

Facts

The petitioners, including Veena Chawla, sought the registration of an FIR against individuals who had invested with the husband of petitioner no. 1. The husband committed suicide on October 5, 2017. His suicide note did not explicitly blame anyone for his death but attributed his financial distress and inability to repay investors to market forces like demonetization and GST. The petitioners contended that the suicide note did mention respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 argued that investors seeking their money back does not constitute abetting suicide. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr. PC for FIR registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the registration of an FIR against the respondents, considering the circumstances of the deceased's suicide and the contents of the suicide note, and whether the actions of the respondents could be construed as abetting suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the suicide note mentioned respondent no. 2, implying a connection to the deceased's financial troubles and subsequent suicide. They sought the registration of an FIR based on this. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that merely seeking the return of invested monies by investors does not amount to compelling or abetting a person to commit suicide. They also contended that the petitioners possessed an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr. PC for seeking the registration of an FIR.