High Court

Legal Reasoning

11222.2022APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1222 OF 2022Mohit Karamjeetsingh BediAge : 20 years, Occ : Education,R/o ND 2 W 4/11 CIDCO,New Nanded...APPLICANT-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Police Officer,Nanded Gramin Police Station,Nanded.2.Bhaskar Pralhadrao MoreAge : 30 years, Occ : Business,R/o Dnyaneshwar Nagar,ND-42, CIDCO, NandedMobile : 9823403957..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicant : Mr.Satyajit S. BoraAPP for Respondent- State : Mr. S.A. GaikwadAdvocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashish B. Shinde…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6th JANUARY, 2025024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The applicant has approached this Court invokingjurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C.) in order to challenge F.I.R. dated 08.03.2022 registered withNanded Gramin Police Station, Nanded, for the offence punishable 21222.2022APPLN.odtunder Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide CrimeNo.0134/2022 along with Charge-Sheet dated 09.12.2022 bearingFinal Report No.423/2022 and Regular Criminal Case No.1168/2022pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded,which is registered pursuant to the said F.I.R. and charge-sheet.2.Respondent No.2 is the informant. He has lodged F.I.R. inrelation to demise of his brother deceased Krushna Pralhadrao More(Hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased hascommitted suicide in the night intervening 10.01.2022 and 11.01.2022by hanging. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the deceased was aman aged 26 years, who was engaged in the business of running agrocery shop. The deceased and the present applicant/accused werefriends. The applicant impressed upon deceased to invest a sum ofRs.5,00,000/- with him for starting business of finance, since as perrepresentation of the applicant, he was holding a valid licence.Respondent No.2 states that the deceased was assured that he wouldget periodical returns in the form of profits earned from such businessand relying on such promise, the deceased invested a sum ofRs.5,00,000/- for the proposed business to be started by the applicant.This amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was arranged by the deceased from hisB.C. group ( a term generally used for a group of people who contribute 31222.2022APPLN.odtmoney in a fund at fixed periods and the collection taken by anyone ormore members as decided by members) and by borrowing money fromsome relatives. It is alleged that the applicant did not start the businessas represented to the deceased and despite repeated demands, he alsodid not refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- received from thedeceased. On the contrary, he used to harass the deceased, whenever heused to ask him to refund the amount. As per allegations in the F.I.R.,due to this, the deceased had landed in a very bad financial conditionand was finding it impossible to meet expenses for basic day to dayneeds. According to respondent No.2, his survival was at stake. 3.It will be pertinent to note that although the deceased hascommitted suicide in the night intervening 10.01.2022 and 11.01.2022,the F.I.R. is lodged on 08.03.2022 i.e. after a period of around twomonths. Perusal of the F.I.R. does not indicate any reason for delay inlodging F.I.R. It may be mentioned that one Bhaskar Pralhadrao More,brother of the deceased had informed the police about the suicidaldeath of the deceased on 11.01.2022 at 10:28 a.m. (page No.136 ofapplication). Perusal of the said written intimation indicates that thebrother has informed that the deceased had committed suicide byhanging due to mental ailment. On the basis of this statement,Accidental Death Case was registered. The intimation dated 11.01.2022 41222.2022APPLN.odtis completely silent with respect to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.It is stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased had arranged money fordepositing the same with the applicant by borrowing the same fromrelatives. The prosecution has also recorded statement of maternaluncle of deceased, who has stated that he had advanced a sum ofRs.2,00,000/- to the deceased for investing the same in the proposedbusiness of finance to be started by the applicant. This fact wouldindicate that the family members and near relatives were aware aboutthe alleged deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- by the deceased with the applicant.The statements in the F.I.R. go on to show that respondent No.2 andfamily members were aware of alleged investment of Rs.5,00,000/-made by deceased with the applicant and the financial hardships thathe faced thereafter on account of failure on the part of the applicant tostart the business and share profits of the said business and also refusalto return the amount. However, the statement made first in point oftime mentioning probable cause of suicide states that it was due tomental ailment. This statement is made by brother of the deceased. Thedelay in lodging the F.I.R. needs to be viewed in view of the aforesaid. 4.The F.I.R. is lodged on the basis of Audio Clips allegedlyrecorded in the mobile phone of the deceased. The script panchnama ofthe Audio Clips is prepared on 20.03.2022. It will be pertinent to 51222.2022APPLN.odtmention here that the script panchnama records that the mobile phonehad a safety password, which was provided by respondent No.2-informant and access to phone could be had only after inserting saidpassword. Thereafter, the Audio Clips were accessed on the mobilephone as per the instructions provided by respondent No.2 by followingroute :- File Manager>Local Files>Record wherein three files by names newrecording were traced. Below these files, the date and time arementioned which are as follows :- Sr. No.Date Time Size of File 1.10.01.202221.023.66 MB2.10.01.202221.28850 KB3.10.01.202221.417.25 MB5.The script panchnama records that Audio Clips wereplayed and script was prepared in presence of panchas on 20.03.2022.The panchas have stated that the transcript is prepared as per thecontents of the Audio Clips. 6.It is relevant to state that the voice in the Audio Clips is notcompared with any other voice sample of the deceased. We havespecifically inquired about this from the learned APP as also the learned 61222.2022APPLN.odtcounsel for respondent No.2, who have confirmed that the voice in theAudio Clips was not compared with any audio sample of the deceased.The Three Audio Files were forwarded to the Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Nanded for examination, vide letter dated 22.03.2022. Theexamination report dated 10.01.2023 merely confirms that the script isprepared as per the contents of the Audio Clips. The relevantobservations in the report are as under :-“… The auditory analysis of the audio recordings marked Ex-1revealed that the audio recording marked in Ex-1 iscontinuous in nature and found similar to the transcriptattached with case forwarding letter.” The copy of the covering letter dated 19.01.2022 andexamination report dated 10.01.2023 are taken on record and marked“Exhibit-A Colly” for identification. 7.It will be pertinent to mention here that the followingquestions sheet vide letter dated 22.03.2022 (at page 48 of theapplication) have not been answered by the Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory :- 71222.2022APPLN.odtQ.1:-What is the mobile number of the seized JIO SIMCARDNo.89918640400059316294 ? Q.3:-What is the date and time of the three audio recordingsreferred in the script panchnama ? 8.It is also apparent that respondent No.2 was aware aboutthe password of the cellphone of the deceased. Respondent No.2 iscompletely silent with respect to the date on which he had first heardthe said three audio clips. The date on which the audio clips wereheard for the first time assumes significance in view of delay of twomonths in lodging the F.I.R.9.In the present case, we find that there is one morecircumstance, which is heavily loaded in favour of the applicant. Thefirst statement in point of time from the family members is dated11.01.2022 immediately upon getting knowledge about the suicidecommitted by the deceased. This statement is made by real brother ofthe deceased. This statement does not contain any allegation similar toone that is levelled in the F.I.R. On the contrary, the statement indicatesthat the deceased had committed suicide due to some mental ailment.The F.I.R. which is lodged after delay of around two months does notspeak about the earlier statement dated 11.01.2022. The 81222.2022APPLN.odtsupplementary statement also do not provide any clarification withrespect to the said statement dated 11.01.2022. The statement dated11.01.2022 is by real brother of the deceased. There is no reason todisbelieve the same. Had there been any explanation to the saidstatement in the F.I.R. or in the statements recorded under Section 161of the Cr.P.C., the same could have been taken into consideration.However, complete silence on the part of respondent No.2 in thisregard is difficult to understand and is beyond comprehension. 10.However, even we accept that the audio clips in the mobilephone were recorded on the above dates and time and further thatwere recorded by the deceased himself, we find that the contents of theAudio Clips do not make out ingredients of Section 306 and/or Section107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is now well settled by catena ofdecisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also different High Courtsincluding this Court that mere proof of causing financial hardship cannot give rise to a inference that the accused caused abetment to commitsuicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. We may also refer tojudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ArnabManoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in(2021) 2 SCC 427. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with a catenaof decisions dealing with essential ingredients of offence of abetment of 91222.2022APPLN.odtsuicide. A F.I.R. was lodged against appellant in the said matter foroffence under Section 306 of the IPC. The allegations in the F.I.R werethat the husband of the informant was running a company doingbusiness of interior designing, engineering consultancy andarchitecture. According to the informant, wife of the deceased theappellant had not made payment for the work done by company of herhusband (deceased) for a period of over two years resulting in financialpressure on the deceased. It was also alleged that the deceasedhusband had visited the office of appellant on several occasions makingdemand of payment of money. He had left a suicide note mentioningthat the persons named in the said note were not paying legitimatedues of his company. The appellant had unsuccessfully challenged theF.I.R. before the High Court. The appellant then carried the orderpassed by the High Court to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In thisbackdrop of facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-“62.…. Prima facie, on the application of the testwhich has been laid down by this Court in a consistentline of authority which has been noted above, it cannotbe said that the appellant was guilty of having abettedthe suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.These observations, we must note, are prima facie atthis stage since the High Court is still to take up thepetition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court 101222.2022APPLN.odtin failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to makea prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functionsand jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section482 CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position thatthe jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to beexercised sparingly. These words, however, are notmeaningless incantations, but have to be assessed withreference to the contents of the particular FIR beforethe High Court. If the High Court were to carry out aprima facie evaluation, it would have been impossiblefor it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR andthe provisions of Section 306 IPC. The failure of theHigh Court to do so has led it to adopting a positionwhere it left the appellant to pursue his remedies forregular bail under Section 439. The High Court wasclearly in error in failing to perform a duty which isentrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section482 albeit at the interim stage.” 11.For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinionthat the contents of the F.I.R., statement of witnesses recorded underSection 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the contents of three audio clips andother material gathered during the course of investigation and formingpart of charge-sheet are insufficient to make out essential ingredients ofSection 306 of the IPC. Since undisputed material on record does notsatisfy the essential requirement of Section 306 of the Indian Penal 111222.2022APPLN.odtCode, it would be unjust to force the applicant to face criminalprosecution for the said offence. In view of the reasons aforesaid, weallow the criminal application by passing following order :- ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)F.I.R. dated 08.03.2022 registered with Nanded Gramin PoliceStation, Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code, vide Crime No.0134/2022 along with Charge-Sheetdated 09.12.2022 bearing Final Report No.423/2022 and RegularCriminal Case No.1168/2022 pending on the file of learned JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Nanded, are hereby quashed against applicant -Mohit Karamjeetsingh Bedi. [ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/