High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 674 20221.Haridas S/o. Uttamrao Ghule2.Nikhil Haridas Ghule3.Samadhan Haridas Ghule4.Kaushalya Haridas Ghule….PetitionersVersus1.The State of Maharashtra2.Pravin Gukuldas Ghule….Respondents….Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit S. MoreAPP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. M.M. NerlikarAdvocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. V.P. Savant…. CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 18 MARCH 2024ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] :1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learnedcounsel for both the sides finally at the admission stage with theirconsent. 2 2.Petitioner is seeking quashment of First Information Reportbearing C.R. No. 53 of 2022 registered with Washi Police Station, Washi,District Osmanabad, for the offence punishable under Section 306 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential Charge-sheet dated24.11.2022. Respondent no. 2 is the informant, who is the son ofdeceased Gokuldas Ghule. Undisputedly, petitioner no. 1 is real brotherof deceased Gokuldas. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sons and petitionerno.4 is wife of petitioner no.1 – Haridas.3.Respondent no. 2 lodged report on 22.03.2023 with VashiPolice Station against petitioners as his father committed suicide on21.03.2022 by hanging himself in the agricultural field. It is the case ofthe prosecution that there were joint family properties of deceased, hisuncle and aunt. Deceased was in military services. In the year 1992-1993 two pieces of lands were purchased by him. But sale deeds wereexecuted in the name of petitioner no. 1. After retirement deceasedsettled at Pune with his son - informant and used to visit native placeRui, Taluka Vashi, District Osmanabad, where the petitioners wereresiding and where the joint family properties were located. Deceasedwas demanding partition and separate possession in the joint familyproperties as well as the lands which were purchased in the name ofpetitioner no.1. It is further alleged that petitioners were not ready to 3 transfer the land and to have any share in the joint family properties. On21.03.2021, the deceased had been to village Rui and insisted thepetitioners to settle the dispute. They refused to accede and deceasedfelt-betrayed. He was found hanging in Gat No. 21/B. The petitionersare held responsible for the suicide of the deceased and the FIR waslodged for abetting suicide.4.Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. More submits thatthere is no material on record to make out abetment as contemplated bySection 107 of the IPC. There was no intention to eliminate deceased.Learned counsel submits that already deceased had filed RCS No.457 of2016 against the petitioner no. 1 and others for partition which waspending. The petitioner no. 1 had also filed RCC No. 593 of 2016 forpartition and declaration which is also sub judice. There was disputeover the joint family properties and there was no reason or thecircumstances for the deceased to commit suicide. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submitthat telephonic talk collected during the course of investigation of whichthe transcript is placed on record does not indicate any intention. Itshows disagreement between the parties over the immovable propertiesand the deceased was over sentimental. Considering the material, learnedcounsel seeks quashment of the proceedings on the basis of the judgment 4 rendered in the matter of Sewakram Perumal Motwani and others VersusState of Maharashtra and others, 2019 (2) AIR Bom.R (Cri.) 954 ;Dilip and others Versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 SCCOnLine Bom 5240 ; Gurcharan Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2020) 10Supreme Court Cases 200 and Madan Mohan Singh Versus State ofGurarat and another, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628.6.Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for respondentno. 2 oppose the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.They would refer to the statements of the witnesses recorded duringcourse of investigation to show that petitioners have deceived deceasedand refused to return the land or to give him his share in the joint familyproperties. There is incriminating role attributable to petitioners and,therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. It is also beingpointed out that deceased was in military services and at that time he hadpurchased property in the name of petitioner no. 1 who refused toretransfer to the deceased. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 hasrelied on the affidavit-in-reply to demonstrate that the petitioners areresponsible for suicide. 7.We have considered rival submissions of the parties. Wehave gone through the charge-sheet. The relationship between thepetitioners, informant and deceased is undisputed. Record reveals that 5 RCS No. 457 of 2016 has been filed by the deceased against petitionerno. 1 and other members of the family for partition and declaration.Petitioner no. 1 has also filed RCS No. 593 of 2016 against deceased andother members of the family. Both the suits are pending before theCompetent Court. It reveals from record that there was dispute betweendeceased and the petitioners over the joint family properties and theproperties purchased benami in the name of petitioner no. 1.8.We have gone through the First Information Report andstatements of witnesses namely Shripati Uttamrao Ghule, ShrirangBajirao Ghule, Tulshiram Bappasaheb Ghule and Prakash NavnathMothe. The discord between deceased and petitioner no. 1 is apparent. Itappears that deceased was insisting to return the land which waspurchased in the name of petitioner no. 1 and to allot him his share in thejoint family property. It also reveals from the statements that deceasedwas found to be more disturbed by alienation of the properties bypetitioner no. 1 to his son petitioner no. 2 – Nikhil. We have alsoconsidered the transcription of telephonic chat between petitioner no. 1and the deceased occurred on 17.03.2022. 9.We do not find that the material on record is cogent enoughto indicate abetment as contemplated by Section 107 of IPC. The dispute 6 between the parties has already reached the court of law. Deceased wasstaying at Pune with informant having visiting terms with the petitioners.There appears to be difference between deceased and the petitioners butthat does not partake the abetment contemplated by section 107 of IPC.We do not find that there was any mens rea on part of petitioners. Theinstigation of the petitioner is not of such a nature that deceased had noalternative than to commit suicide. 10.Telephonic conversation between deceased and petitionerno. 1 shows that the deceased was hypersensitive to the petulance anddiscord due to the property disputes. During the telephonic conversationhe appeared to have cried at times. But, equally he appears to be on atalking term with the petitioners. There is no material to show thatdeceased was helpless and had no alternative than to end his life. We areof the considered view that no case can be made out for the offenceunder Section 306 of IPC.11.Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied uponthe judgments of Sewakram Perumal Motwani and others (supra), Dilipand others (supra), Gurcharan Singh (supra) and Madan Mohan Singh(supra). It would be futile exercise to prosecute the petitioners for theoffence in question. We therefore, pass following order : 7 ORDERi.Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.ii.Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause‘B’ and ‘B-1’. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ] Thakur-Chauhan/-