High Court
Legal Reasoning
cria-1166.246the deceased. Particular details might not have been givenregarding the incidences of harassment but certainly thepressure could be seen or the tension could be seen by therelatives and it has then resulted in the mental harassmentleading to the suicide by the deceased. It would be the matter ofevidence that, as to how the pressure was put or how thethreats were given and in fact the applicants, who are veryhighly qualified persons and medical practitioners, still takinghelp of the gundas, wanted the plot back. Even the deceased aswell as the informant are qualified persons. The deceased hadraised the amount byway of loan as well as by selling certainproperty and therefore, he could not have sustained the pressurewhich was in fact criminally created by the present applicants.Therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercisethe powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.5.Before turning to the facts in the present case, we wouldlike to have a glance at the legal position. We would like to relyon the decision of this Court in Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao andothers vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 ALL MR (Cri)4328, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanju aliasSanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cri.L.J.2796; Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another, cria-1166.247reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay KumarMahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.)., ChitreshKumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC605, Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 438, Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3)SCC 731, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9SCC 618, State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nairand others, reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3351, whereinthe law has been made clear. In Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao andothers vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (supra), this Court,relying upon the catena of the decisions of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, held that it is necessary for the prosecution to at leastprima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid orinstigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and in theabsence of availability of such material, the accused cannot becompelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section306 of the Indian Penal Code.6.Taking into consideration the legal position, we will nowturn to the facts in the present case. The fact of purchase of plotby deceased Raghunath from the father of applicant No.1 on 18thApril 2022 is an admitted position and also there is an admittedposition that applicant No.1 filed R.C.S. No.109 of 2022. But cria-1166.248herein this case it is to be borne in mind that originally the saidsuit appears to have been filed on 14th February 2022 before theCourt and it appears that it was originally against Marotrao i.e.father of applicant No.1, and brokers Shaikh Ziyaur Rahemanand Nitesh Waghmare. On 17th March 2022, there appears to besome correction in the name of defendant No.2 and thatamendment was allowed. Raghunath came to be added by wayof amendment as per order below Exhibit-21 on 24th July 2023.Now, as per the FIR, the first incident is stated to have takenplace on 8th September 2023. At the cost of repetition, it willhave to be stated that from 18th April 2022 till 8th September2023, though the sale-deed was executed in the name ofRaghunath, it is not stated that there was any such act by thepresent applicants against Raghunath. Then on 8th September2023, the informant had gone along with her husband, when it isstated that the applicants had called Raghunath to theirresidence. It is stated that both the applicants told Raghunaththat he should return the plot or give amount of Rs.40,00,000/-.No complaint was lodged by Raghunath as it appears, in respectof the said incident. If we literally dissect the FIR, then it can beseen that on 8th September 2023 except the insistence of thereturn of plot or giving amount of Rs.40,00,000/- no other talk cria-1166.249giving threat to kill or asking Raghunath to go and die had takenplace. 7.The informant then states that thereafter i.e. from 8thSeptember 2023, from time to time the applicants were insistingthat Raghunath should return the plot or give amount ofRs.40,00,000/- or then he would be killed or he should die andthen only they will get their plot back. Now, it is stated that evenalong with the present applicant, the mother and brother ofapplicant No.1 were stated to be along with the applicants insaying so. It is stated in the FIR, as well as the sale-deed is onrecord which would show that the mother and brother ofapplicant No.1 were the party giving consent to the execution ofthe sale-deed. Under the said circumstance, why they would jointhe applicants, would be another question. Thereafter there is anincident that had taken place somewhere in January 2024. It isthen stated that when Raghunath was returning from college, hewas obstructed by the applicants as well as the mother andbrother of applicant No.1 as well as gundas, and again the samethreat was given and demand was made. This incident is alsothen not reported by Raghunath. Raghunath committed suicideon 5th February 2024. At this stage itself, we would like toconsider the photocopy of the screen shot/message on the cria-1166.2410mobile phone of the son of the deceased and it is stated to be bythe deceased. Of course, how far the document as it is can beconsidered, would be a question. The charge-sheet does notshow that the mobile phone has been seized. Even if we takethat any such message would have been sent, it was on 15thDecember 2023 and the suicide has been committed on 5thFebruary 2024. We would like to rely upon the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash and others vs. the State ofMaharashtra and others, 2024 INSC 1020, wherein it has beenobserved that:-“To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of theIPC, there must be a direct or indirect act of instigation orintentional aid by the accused, with a clear mens rea, and aproximate link between the act of instigation and the suicideitself, not just harassment, and each case must be decidedbased on its own facts.” 7.Thus, there is no proximity between the deceased sendingmessage on the mobile phone of the son and committing suicide.Therefore, the said message cannot be considered or would notbe admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.8.Now, another interesting aspect is that the relatives of thedeceased as well as his friend Prakash Jondhale appears to have cria-1166.2411missed the chronology. Of course their statements have beenrecorded on 19th June 2024 and by that time the father of thepresent applicant No.1 had expired. But these witnesses havestated that after death of father of applicant No.1, the suit wasfiled by applicant No.1. The applicants have produced the copy ofRoznama in R.C.S. No.109 of 2022, which shows that on 21stJanuary 2023, defendant No.1 i.e. father of present applicantNo.1 was present before the Court. Application to bring his legalrepresentatives on record has been filed on 12th December 2023.Therefore, it appears that his death is in between 21st January2023 to 12th December 2023. It appears that the deathcertificate which should have been filed before the concernedCourt, has not been exhibited. Thus, when these close relativesof deceased were not even aware as to when the suit was filedby applicant No.1, then they cannot be said to be the properwitnesses who have had the knowledge.9.Even without considering those statements or taking themas it is, yet in view of the said legal position and the facts, asthere is no proximity between the incidences, we are of theopinion that the ingredients under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code are not made out and therefore, it would be an abuseof process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial. This is a cria-1166.2412fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, we passfollowing order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The proceedings in the proceedings in R.C.C.No. 111 of 2025 pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, arising outof the First Information Report vide Crime No.38of 2024 registered with Bhagyanagar PoliceStation, Nanded, on 6th February 2024, for theoffence punishable under Sections 306, 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against applicant No. 1 -Pramod Maroti Ansapure and applicant No.2 -Vaishali Pramod Ansapure.[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/JUNE25
Arguments
cria-1166.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1166 OF 20241) Pramod Maroti Ansapure, Age-46 years, Occu:Medical Practitioner, R/o-Flat No.7, Aashirvad Apartment, Vasant Nagar, Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded,2) Vaishali Pramod Ansapure, Age-41 years, Occu:Medical Practitioner, R/o-Flat No.7, Aashirvad Apartment, Vasant Nagar, Nanded, Taluka and District-Nanded, ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Officer Incharge, Police Station, Bhagyanagar, Nanded, District-Nanded,2) Kirti Raghunath Tate, Age-42 years, Occu:Teacher, R/o-Sambhajinagar-2, Taroda Bk., Nanded, District-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke Advocate for Applicants. Ms. R.P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2025 cria-1166.242ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, initially for quashing the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No.38 of2024 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, on 6thFebruary 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 306,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and later on,by way of amendment for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C.No. 111 of 2025 pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Nanded. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke for the applicants,learned APP Ms. Gour for respondent No.1 and learned AdvocateMr. Borulkar for respondent No.2. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge-sheet including the FIR and he submits thatrespondent No.2 – informant is the widow of the deceasedRaghunath Bhujang Tate. Deceased had purchased immovableproperty bearing Plot No.6 in Gut No.169 at village TarodaKhurd, with the mediation of broker, from the father of applicantNo.1. Mother of applicant No.1, Nagmani and brother Shankar cria-1166.243were the consenting party and then it is stated that it was theplot which was self acquired by the father of applicant No.1.After the sale-deed, present applicants, mother and brother ofapplicant No.1 started saying that they have share in theproperty and therefore, the property should be returned to them.Civil Suit bearing No.109 of 2022 was also filed. Then theinformant states about an alleged incident dated 8th September2023, wherein deceased Raghunath was called by the presentapplicants at their residence and therefore, Raghunath as well asthe informant had gone to the residence of the applicants. Atthat time the applicants insisted that the deceased should returnthe plot or give an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Even thereafteralso it is stated that the applicants as well as mother and brotherof applicant No.1, with the help of gundas, were insisting thatthe deceased should either return the plot or pay amount ofRs.40,00,000/- otherwise he would be killed or he should die.Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that no offence wasregistered or complaint was filed in respect of the said incidentby the deceased. The informant then states that in January2024, when her husband was returning from college, he wasobstructed by the applicants, mother and brother of applicantNo.1, with the help of some gundas and again demanded the cria-1166.244same and uttered that otherwise he would be killed or he shoulddie. This fact was then told by Raghunath to the informant. Evenat this point of time there was no complaint that was lodged.Learned Advocate for the applicants has placed on record thecopy of the plaint in R.C.S. No.109 of 2022 and he submits thatapplicant No.1 has filed it against his father, the alleged brokersand deceased Raghunath and the said suit was for executing theright of preemption and later on, byway of amendment, prayerwas made for declaring the said sale-deed as not binding onapplicant No.1. In fact the said suit was filed prior to theexecution of sale-deed in favour of deceased Raghunath andthen, as the sale-deed was executed during the pendency of thesuit, the amendment was carried out and Raghunath came to beadded as party, by way of amendment on 24th July 2023. Theapplicants were pursuing the legal recourse and therefore, itcannot be stated that there was any element of abetment in theaction taken by the applicants. The informant in the FIR hasstated that due to the harassment and threats given toRaghunath, he committed suicide on 5th February 2024, around4.00 p.m. in the house. During the investigation, the screenshots of the mobile of the son of the deceased wherein he hadreceived the message from his father, have been captured, cria-1166.245wherein on 15th December 2023, it was messaged by deceasedthat if anything happens to him, then applicant No.1 should beheld responsible as he was under their pressure and he hadcollected the amount for construction by selling house and byraising loan. However, the suicide is dated 5th February 2024 andtherefore, this message that was given on 15th December 2023,cannot be considered as suicide note. Though the relatives of thedeceased in their statements have stated about the allegedharassment, they had no personal knowledge about the same.There is nothing on record which will attract the ingredients ofoffence under Section 306, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and therefore, the entire proceedings deserveto be quashed and set aside. 4.Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and theysubmit that the informant herself had witnessed the incidentdated 8th September 2023 wherein the present applicants hadpressurized and threatened Raghunath for return of the plot orpayment of amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Thereafter also time andagain deceased had informed about the threats those were givenby the applicants to the informant as well as his relatives i.e. theparents and one Prakash Ganpat Jondhale, who is the friend of