Routine disciplinary action can’t be termed abetment of suicide, says Madras HC

CHENNAI: Rejecting leave applications, marking an employee absent, and initiating disciplinary proceedings do not amount to abetment of suicide, held the Madras High Court while quashing a case against an MTC official.

Observing that there was no proximate link between the actions of the accused and the employee's death, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan said continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The court was hearing a petition filed by K Swarna Latha, Senior Deputy Manager (HRD) at MTC, seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Government Railway Police (GRP), Chennai.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and other accused had allegedly harassed a junior engineer by rejecting his leave applications, marking him absent, and initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. Unable to bear the alleged mental distress, the employee died by suicide after jumping in front of a train.

Before his death, he had sent an email to the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, naming the accused as responsible for his death.

The GRP inspector in Tambaram initially registered a case under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which was subsequently altered to Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to abetment of suicide.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate NR Elango submitted that the deceased junior engineer had a history of erratic behaviour, with multiple suspensions, loss of pay, postponed increments, fines and warnings, as well as frequent unauthorised absence from duty. He also pointed out that the employee had made a suicide threat to his higher officials on July 8, 2024.

After hearing the plea, the judge observed that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS. The court subsequently quashed the FIR.