High Court

Legal Reasoning

1criappln.2570-2022IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD27 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2570 OF 2022Supriya D/o. Shivajirao Dhobale,Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Student,R/o. Asola, Jawala Bajar, Hingoli,Aundha Nagnath. …. ApplicantVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Police Station (City),Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. 2.Narayan S/o. Vishwanath Telgad,Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agricultural,R/o. Pandhari, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. …. Respondents….Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Girish K. Naik Thigle APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan ….CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 17th March 2025PER COURT :-1.The present application has been filed under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”),initially for quashment of the First Information Report (for short “theF.I.R.”) vide C.R. No.0270 of 2022, dated 02.07.2022, registered with 2criappln.2570-2022Hatta Police Station, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli and later on, by wayof amendment, for quashing of R.C.C. No.182 of 2023, then pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basmath,Dist. Hingoli, for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (for short “the I.P.C.”).2.Heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well aslearned APP for the State and learned Advocate for respondentNo.2/informant.3.Learned Advocate for the applicant has taken us throughthe contents of the F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet and submits that theallegations are that the present applicant used to talk with thedeceased. However, she had suddenly stopped talking with him andbecause of that, the deceased was under tension. In fact, the suicidewas committed on 25.03.2022, for which A.D. came to be registeredon 26.03.2022, by the informant himself. However, no allegationswere made on that day. Thereafter, the F.I.R. came to be registeredon 02.07.2022. There is no reasonable explanation given in the F.I.R.for the delay. Perusal of the statements of witnesses would also showthat there was no positive act committed by the present applicant forthe abetment and therefore, the ingredients of the offence are notmade out. It would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial. 3criappln.2570-20224.Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate forrespondent No.2/informant have strongly opposed the applicationand they submit that there is sufficient evidence collected during thecourse of investigation which would show that the case is made outfor trial. Taking into consideration the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,the inquiry cannot be to the extent of whether a conviction can beimposed on the basis of the material that has been collected. Thoughthe informant, who is the father of the deceased, had no knowledgeabout the relationship between the deceased and the applicant, yet hecame to know about it from his nephew after some days and duringthe investigation, the statements of witnesses, especially a friend ofthe present applicant and friend of the deceased, have been recordedand they have stated that the applicant and deceased used to talkwith each other and in fact there was love affair between them. But,thereafter, the applicant stopped talking to the deceased. Thedeceased used to give phone calls on the mobile of a friend of theapplicant even though she had blocked the number of the deceased.This action on the part of the applicant had led to the mental tensionand he took it as harassment and therefore, he has committed suicideand thus, the case is made out for trial.5.Respondent No.2/informant is the father of the deceased 4criappln.2570-2022Gajanan, who was taking education in D-Pharmacy. It appears thatthe informant had no knowledge about the reason why his soncommitted suicide at around 05.30 p.m. on 25.03.2022. Accordingly,A.D. No.02 of 2022 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered byhim. But, then, he says that after some days, he came to know fromhis nephew that since two months prior to the death, there was loveaffair between deceased Gajanan and the applicant and they used totalk on phone with each other and used to meet with each other. Thisfact was told by Gajanan to him and then he also told that, all of asudden, the applicant had stopped talking with the deceased and shewas talking with some other boy. She was avoiding the deceased.Because of which, Gajanan was feeling harassment and was undertension and then, the informant says that the death of his son was dueto the behavior of the applicant.6.Here, in this case, the fact that Gajanan has committedsuicide appears to be not in dispute. The A.D., inquest panchanama,spot panchnama and post mortem report are all corroborating the factof suicide. The post mortem report gives the probable cause of deathas “death is complete hanging”. 7.In order to attract the provision of Section 306 of I.P.C.,we must consider Section 107 of I.P.C. Taking into consideration the 5criappln.2570-2022definition of abetment of a thing given under Section 107 of I.P.C., itcan be said that in order to constitute abetment, an abettor must beshown to have intentionally aided the commission of a crime. We aretaking note of various decision in M. Mohan Vs. State Through Dy.Superintendent of Police, 2011 (3) SCC 626 and Dilip S/o RamraoShirasao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2016 ALLMR (Cri) 4328, wherein it is held that an active act on the part of aperson who alleged to have committed abetment is necessary.8.In order to consider the said act, we are taking note ofthe statement of witness Dwarka Waghmare, who is friend of thepresent applicant. Her statement has been recorded under Section161 of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has specificallystated that the present applicant had told her that there is love affairbetween herself and deceased and they used to meet in the college.However, thereafter, there was quarrel between both of them. Thedeceased used to raise suspicion on the applicant by saying that shetalks with somebody else. He used to abuse her and pick up quarrelswith her and therefore, the applicant told him that he should not talkto her and then she had blocked his account as well as phone number.On 25.03.2022, the deceased had given phone call on the mobile ofwitness Dwarka, then the deceased and the present applicant had 6criappln.2570-2022talked. This witness says that even on that day, the applicant had toldthat he should not call her as he is raising suspicion over her andgiving abuses referring to her mother. 9.There are statements of other friends of the applicant,but it appears that they are hearsay. The friends of the deceased haveonly stated about the relationship between the deceased and theapplicant. Therefore, from the available evidence on the charge-sheet,it can certainly be said that there was absolutely no intention on thepart of the present applicant when she blocked the phone number ofthe deceased so that he should commit suicide. There is no active roleon the part of the present applicant intending that there should besuicide by the deceased. Even from the FIR itself, it can be seen,whatever was conveyed to the nephew of the informant and in thestatement of the said nephew under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also, thatas the applicant was not talking with the deceased, he was undertension and he had a feeling that he should not live. It was notinformed by the deceased that positive incident had happened in therecent past on which the deceased committed suicide. 10.Thus, when the ingredients of the offence are not madeout prima facie also, this would be a fit case where we should exerciseour powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as it is the parameters 7criappln.2570-2022laid down in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,AIR 1992 SC 604. It would be abuse of process of law if the applicantis allowed to face the trial. Hence the following order is passed. ORDER1.The application stands allowed.2.The First Information Report vide C.R. No.0270 of2022, registered with Hatta Police Station,Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli and the proceedings inR.C.C. No.182 of 2023, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Basmath, Dist.Hingoli and/or if the case is committed for thesessions, then the proceedings before the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Basmath, Dist. Hingoli,for the offence under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 stands quashed and set aside asagainst the present applicant. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd