Delhi HC quashes summons against former DU college principal in abetment to suicide case | Latest India News

The New Delhi High Court said that the decisions of a person occupying a certain position may be harsh and affect the employee, but he cannot be held liable for aiding the suicide of an employee if he had no criminal intent.

Justice Amit Sharma noted that he had quashed the trial court’s order summoning the former principal of BR Ambedkar College at Delhi University and a senior assistant working in the principal’s office in the case of abetting the suicide of a college employee in 2013.

“A person holding a specific position, whether in the private or public sector, in the course of performing his duties, must make certain decisions that may at times be difficult and cause difficulties for the employee,” the judge wrote in his October 29 order.

The court further held that in the absence of the requisite mens rea, the suit cannot be said to be abetment or incitement under Section 306 of the IPC.

“There cannot be an absolute rule and each case will depend on the facts and circumstances,” he noted.

Both the petitioners had moved the court challenging the 2014 order of the trial court inviting them to file petitions in connection with the death of a former employee of the university who suffered burns after being set on fire outside the Delhi Registrar’s Office in 2013.

During the investigation, in the alleged suicide note, the woman’s act of self-immolation was attributed to mental and physical harassment by the college principal, senior assistant and others.

Before her death, the woman had made a statement before the division judge in which she blamed the petitioners as well as several authorities, including the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University and then the Delhi Chief Minister, for the lack of support.

She alleged that in addition to harassment from the petitioners, she was subjected to a heavy workload and claimed that her complaints to the authorities had received little attention. She said she was “wrongfully dismissed” from service in 2012.

The Supreme Court noted that all her complaints were closed by the authorities concerned after investigation.

“The deceased’s service ended on March 13, 2012, and the date of the suicide attempt was September 30, 2013, however, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the petitioners had any contact with the deceased after the termination of her employment and just before a suicide attempt,” he noted.

The court found that the petitioners were not imputed to any overt or covert actions that occurred around the time of the woman’s suicide.

The Supreme Court held that the complaints were pending before various statutory authorities which were not under the direct control of the principal of the college and the suicide note not only raised complaints against the petitioners but also against the then chief minister of Delhi and vice-chancellor of DU.

“The incident of attempted suicide has already been investigated by a commission constituted by the National Commission for Women and the BL Garg Commission, notwithstanding the present charge sheet in which the petitioners have been acquitted,” the court said.

This article was generated from an automated feed from a news agency, without any modifications to the text.