High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023.Balaji S/o. Ganpatrao KanthewadAge: 53 years, Occ. : Contractor,R/o. Shrudha Nivas, Janki Nagar,Airport Road, Near Hanumannagar Temple,Nanded, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.….Applicant Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Vivekanand Chowk Police Station,Dist.Latur.2.Sonali Wd/o Satish NaikAge: 29 years, Occu. : Household,R/o. House No.301, Third Floor,Keshav Apartment, Dnyaneshwar Nagar,LIC Colony, Latur,Tq. & Dist.Latur.…..Respondents …..Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.S.A.Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. J.M. Murkute (absent) ….. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ. DATE : 20 AUGUST, 2024 ORDER (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :1.By invoking provisions under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, applicant herein is seeking quashment of FIRregistered at Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur for offencepunishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC). {2} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 20232.Learned Counsel for the applicant would point out that presentapplicant is a contractor. One staff of M.S.E.B. namely Satish Naikcommitted suicide on 04-06-2019 at his own place. His wiferespondent no.2 approached Police alleging that her husbandcommitted suicide because of alleged harassment at the hands ofpresent applicant and Deputy Engineer Gadekar, another contractorSachin Morkhande, and three others, resulting into the FIR.According to learned Counsel for the applicant, deceased committedsuicide for the reasons known to him. That there was no harassmentas alleged. That infact there is no material in the FIR or even in thechargesheet even suggesting abetment, inducement or instigation tocommit suicide. Furthermore, there are general allegations. That norole or positive act is attributed to present applicant. That there wasno previous complaint against applicant and others at any point oftime. On the contrary, certain irregularities were committed bydeceased himself. That applicant has no concern with any of theofficial work, he being private contractor. However, merely becausewife of deceased / respondent no.2 has named present applicant, heis constrained to approach this Court. That considering nature ofallegations, benefit of anticipatory bail was already granted and heco-operated in investigation. Now chargesheet is filed but there is no {3} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023iota of evidence against applicant for commission of offence underSection 306 read with 34 of the IPC and hence, to avoid ordeal oftrial, prayers for quashing the FIR are pressed into service.3.Above application is opposed by the learned APP pointing outthat there are specific allegations of harassment by applicant andothers. Suicide is committed on 04-06-2019. That deceaseddisclosed informant wife the treatment mated out to him by personsnamed in the report. Therefore, after FIR, investigation was carriedout and according to learned APP, case for trial has been made outand on such count application is opposed.4.Here prayers are for quashing the FIR regarding commission ofoffence under Section 306 of the IPC.5.In order to attract the charge of Section 306 of IPC, it isincumbent upon prosecution to establish incitement, instigation,aiding or abetment to commit suicide. Scope of Sections 107 and306 has been time and again decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court inthe cases viz; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal reported in(1994) 1 SCC 73; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh reportedin(2001) 9 SCC 618; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. {4} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023reported in(2002) 5 SCC 371; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. Statereported in (2009) 16 SCC 605; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State ofWest Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707; State of West Bengal v.Indrajit Kundu and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 188; Rajesh v.State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; V.P.Singh etc. v.State of Punjab and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1999 andvery recently in the case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State ofKarnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided on01.03.2024].In above series of cases, it has been held and reiterated thataccused persons should specifically intend that deceased should endup his/her life. With that object in mind, if they deliberately createcircumstances, which are of such nature, that deceased is left with noother alternative but to end up his/her life, only then charge ofabetment to commit suicide can be said to be successfully broughthome. Abetment, inducement or instigation to commit suicide areequally essential factors to be proved by prosecution. 6.Bearing above legal position in mind, FIR is studied. Atthe outset, it is noticed that informant has approached Police on09-06-2019 with regard to suicide committed by her husband Satishon 04-06-2019. FIR also shows that in early hours of the morning in {5} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023their house, deceased had hanged himself. Sum and substance ofreport by respondent no.2 / informant is that, deceased was inservice of M.S.E.B. as a Section Engineer and was also suspended in2016. She has alleged that, however, he was reinstated buttransferred and was working at Nilanga. According to informant,after resuming work at Nilanga, her husband disclosed her that oneDeputy Engineer Gadekar, his colleagues Sachin Morkhande,Contractor Kanthewad, Ajale, Choudhari, Giri and Telang wereharassing him. In report itself, she stated that she questioneddeceased that for what he was harassed, but her husband did notdisclose her anything. She claims that on 02-06-2019, her husbandsent her WhatsApp message but as she could not understand it, shefurther forwarded it to her brother Nitin and in said message,deceased had conveyed harassment. That all relatives, who receivedsuch message had also come to their house on 03-06-2019 anddeceased was given understanding. Between 04:00 a.m. to 05:30a.m. on 04-06-2019, her husband hanged himself. Admittedly, afterfive days of suicide, above report has been lodged. Secondly,informant herself does not know on what count, there washarassment by persons named in the report. Therefore, with suchallegations and when there is no material to show any positive or {6} CR APPLICATION NO. 734 OF 2023active role played by the applicant in proximity to alleged suicidedated 04-06-2019, it is unreasonable to connect applicant to theunfortunate incident. There is no whisper of abetment, inducementor instigation, which are essential ingredients for attracting Section306 of the IPC.7.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, consideringthe FIR, statements of witnesses recorded by Police, which areapparently stereotype, making applicant face trial would definitelyamount to hardship and injustice. In the considered opinion of thisCourt, with such material on record, exercise of trial would be infutility and so applicant succeeds. Accordingly, following order ispassed : ORDERI.The application is allowed.II.The FIR No.0235 of 2019 dated 09-06-2019 registered withVivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, Chargesheet arisingout of it and the proceedings in RCC No.1639 of 2023pending before the learned JMFC, Latur, District Latur, arehereby quashed and set aside. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE JUDGESPT