High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri.Appln.1300.2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1300 OF 20231.Pandurang Bhausaheb Kute,Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Vandana Pandurang Kute,Age : 39 years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3.Baburao Dadarao Kachkure,Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 4.Laxmibai Baburao Kachkure,Age : 43 years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 5.Dnyaneshwar Baburao Jadhav,Age : 32 years, Occu. : Agriculture, R/o. Malshendra, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.… Applicants.(Orig. Accused)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through In Charge Officer, Police Station Chikalthana, Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Lankabai Bhausaheb Kachkure,Age : 35 years, Occu. : Agriculture & Household, R/o. Shendra, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad… Respondents.…Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. N. R. Daima, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.Mr. Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2....
Legal Reasoning
-2- Cri.Appln.1300.2023CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2024ORDER (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :1.In this application, applicants herein are seeking exercise ofpowers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) forquashing of FIR vide Crime No.50 of 2023, dated 15.02.2023 registeredwith Chikalthana Police Station, Aurangabad for commission of offenceunder sections 306, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).2.Pleading innocence and false implication, learned counselfor applicants pointed out that, above crime has been registered on reportlodged by wife of deceased Bhausaheb, who allegedly hanged himself on11.02.2023. It is pointed out that, report and FIR regarding occurrenceof 11.02.2023 is lodged on 14.02.2023 i.e. after three days and henceapparently, it is delayed and afterthought FIR. It is pointed out that,deceased had hanged himself for the best reasons known to him. That,there is already a civil dispute. That, deceased had outraged the modestyof daughter of applicant nos.1 and 2 and report was accordingly bookedby police. Therefore, out of fear, he might have committed suicide. It ispointed out that, allegations are levelled that only because ofhumiliation, insult and defamation, Bhausaheb committed suicide. That,applicants are not at all concerned. Their roles are not defined. That, in -3- Cri.Appln.1300.2023the entire charge-sheet, there is no evidence that applicants abetted orinstigated the suicide. Learned counsel pointed out that, in fact on21.01.2023 deceased and his companions had assaulted present applicantno.4 and said occurrence was reported at police station. Present FIR byrespondent no.2 is a counterblast.3.Further according to learned counsel, necessary ingredientsfor attracting offence of 306 of IPC are patently missing. That, there isalso no material in support of commission of offence of 504 and 506 ofIPC. According to learned counsel, with such material, it would be unjustto allow prosecution to be launched against applicants.4.Above application is strongly opposed by both, learnedcounsel for informant - respondent no.2 as well as learned APP. The sumand substance of their argument is that, there are clear allegations thatapplicants subjected deceased Bhausaheb to continuous harassment.That, they were regularly levelling false allegations and trying toimplicate him in some or the other case. That, only because of theharassment and humiliation, Bhausaheb took the extreme steps ofhanging himself. That, there was no other reason except harassment byaccused. That, sufficient material has been gathered by investigatingmachinery, and therefore, according to them, it is a fit case for trial and isnot at all a case for quashment by exercising powers under section 482 ofCr.P.C. -4- Cri.Appln.1300.20235.Heard both sides. This court is called upon to quash FIRregistered at Chikalthana Police Station for commission of offence undersections 306, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On going through the papers, ittranspires that said report on the basis of which crime is registered, is atthe instance of Lankabai, who is wife of deceased Bhausaheb. Studied theFIR dated 14.02.2023. Substance of the FIR is that, there used to becontinuous quarrel between informant’s family and PandurangBhausaheb Kute. There used to be quarrel on account of right to use theway. According to informant, in the backdrop of above quarrel,Pandurang and his wife Vandana lodged false report against her husbandfor outraging modesty of their daughter, namely Rohini. That, on suchcount Pandurang, Vandana, cousin brother Baburao, his wife Laxmibaiand cousin of Vandana, namely Dnyaneshwar continuously taunted,thereby humiliating informant’s husband and this was reported toinformant by deceased husband and he expressed being continuouslyhumiliated. That, her husband was harassed by deliberately lodging falsecomplaint and was therefore under continuous pressure. She has allegedthat, resultantly, on 11.02.2023 her husband hanged himself on a tree.That a suicide note was found and it was handed over to police. Hence,she lodged above report against present applicants. -5- Cri.Appln.1300.20236.On going through the papers, it transpires that on30.12.2022 i.e. almost two to three months prior to suicide, report waslodged by daughter of applicant no.1 i.e. Rohini alleging outragingmodesty by deceased Bhausaheb and on the strength of which crime wasregistered against him for alleged occurrence dated 30.12.2022.7.Suicide note is a part of charge-sheet. On going through thesame, it is pertinent to note that, said suicide note is shown to be writtenon 30.12.2022, but here admittedly Bhausaheb committed suicide on11.02.2023.8.It needs to be appreciated that report against applicants islodged on 14.02.2023 i.e. after three days of suicide by Bhausaheb.Statements of witnesses recorded by investigating machinery areapparently stereotype i.e. raising quarrel on account of use of way,insulting and lodging false complaint and deceased to be under pressure. 9.In order to attract the charge of section 306 of IPC, it isincumbent upon prosecution to establish incitement, instigation, aidingor abetment to commit suicide. Law to this extent has been fairly settledin series of cases. Scope of Sections 107 and 306 has been time and againdecided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases viz; Ramesh Kumar v. -6- Cri.Appln.1300.2023State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618; Sanju @ SanjaySingh Sengar v. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371; State ofWest Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC188; V. P. Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and others reported in 2022 SCCOnline SC 1999; and very recently in the case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumarv. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No.1427 of 2011 decided by theHon’ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024]. In above series of cases, it has been held and reiterated thataccused persons should intend that deceased should end up his/her life.With that object in mind, if they deliberately create circumstances, whichare of such nature, that deceased is left with no other alternative but toend up his/her life, only then charge of abetment to commit suicide canbe said to be successfully brought home. Abetment is equally an essentialfactor to be proved by prosecution. 10.Keeping in sight the above legal requirements, here, ongoing through the papers, it is emerging that, there is no material toshow that, in proximity to date of suicide dated 11.02.2023, there wasany role attributable to present applicants. Informant wife though herselfclaims that, deceased was under pressure, there is FIR against him foroutraging modesty. General allegations are levelled against applicantsthat they taunted, quarreled and humiliated deceased. Even such -7- Cri.Appln.1300.2023allegations are not in proximity to date of suicide so as to hold themresponsible for abetting or instigating the suicide.11.Taking the nature of allegations in the FIR intoconsideration and when there is no material to show nexus betweenapplicants and suicidal death either on 11.02.2023 or immediately priorto it, coupled with the fact that alleged suicide note being much prior toactual commission of suicide, it is a fit case to intervene to prevent abuseof process of law with such quality of evidence on record. There is noevidence for namesake regarding commission of offence under sections504 and 506 of IPC. Consequently, applicants succeed and weaccordingly proceed to pass following order :-ORDER (i)The criminal application stands allowed.(ii)FIR No. 50 of 2023, dated 15.02.2023 registered withChikalthana Police Station, Aurangabad for commission ofoffence under sections 306, 504, 506 r/w section 34 ofIndian Penal Code and the consequential charge-sheetarising out of it vide RCC No. 1111 of 2023 pending on thefile of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arehereby quashed and set aside.(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) Tandale