Court raps Mumbai Police for not closing abetment of suicide case against lawyer

The Bombay High Court on Thursday reprimanded the Mumbai Police for not closing a case against a lawyer who was booked for abetting the suicide of a private firm’s employee at the city’s international airport.

A bench of Justices AS Gadkari and RR Bhonsale, in an interim order, stayed all proceedings against the petitioner advocate. “What is this? IS it only because he is representing some client? Where are we leading Mr?,” the court asked Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute while hearing the plea.

The case dates back to 2020, when Sakinaka police registered an FIR against the company’s owner and its advocate after the employee, working as a trolley supervisor, left behind a suicide note naming them.

Advocate Sanjeev Kadam, appearing for the lawyer, argued that the company had appointed his client to conduct a departmental inquiry into the employee’s misconduct. The employee later died by suicide, leaving behind the note. Kadam submitted that the advocate was only acting on the company’s behalf as an enquiry officer.

The employee’s wife had also moved an application under the Scheduled Caste Atrocities Act, seeking stricter sections. She alleged her husband had been sidelined since 2019, was made to sit at home, and remained under stress because of the departmental inquiry.

On hearing this, the bench remarked: “In such conditions, all advocates will face such a situation one day or other. There will be no advocate to accept a brief of such person.”

The court noted, “Kadam drew our attention to the suicide note that is allegedly scribed by the dead. A bare perusal of the suicide note clearly reveals that the petitioner was an advocate of the company in which the deceased was working. There is no allegation of abetment to commit suicide at the behest of the petitioner to the deceased in the same suicide note.”

Finding merit in Kadam’s submissions, the court observed that the lawyer was appointed to provide legal advice, conduct the inquiry, and represent the company before forums if necessary. “Only because the petitioner appeared on behalf of the company does not amount under law that he was instrumental in initiating the enquiry,” it added.

The police had filed an “A summary report” in the case, which is filed when an offence is made out, but proof is insufficient. However, the bench disagreed. “In perusing the suicide note, according to us, instead of filing a summary report, the police ought to have filed a closure report against the advocate who appeared on behalf of the company and has no role against him of abetment. In view of the above, all further proceedings arising of the Sakinaka case qua the petitioner are stayed,” the order said.

The bench issued notice to the dead employee’s wife and will hear the plea again after three weeks.

- Ends

Tune In