High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2985 OF 20231Umesh Shivram Patil,Age 35 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Sy.No.20/2, Vinayak Park,Alandi Road, in front of Old Water Tank,Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. 2Pradeep Bhimrao Bhosale,Age 67 yrs., Occ. Retired,R/o Shri Balaji Moti Chowk,Sangli, Tq. & Dist. Sangli. 3Ashwaq Iqbal Sayyed,Age 47 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Sy.No.51, Plot No.73,Flat No.8, Unique Corner,Bhairav Nagar, Dhanori,Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. 4Anil Tulshiram Mane,Age 32 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Sy.No.52/1/1/3/1,Plot No.17, Behind GagangiriKaryalaya, Bhairav Nagar, Dhanori,Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Railway Police Station,Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon,Dist. Jalgaon. 2Vijaysingh Raghunathsingh Pardeshi,Age 64 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Nagardevla, Tq. Pachora, 2Cri.Appln_2985_2023Dist. Jalgaon. … Respondents...Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for applicantsMr. A.D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1Mr. S.V. Dixit, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.RESERVED ON :11th MARCH, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :21st APRIL, 2025ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed for quashment of theproceedings in Sessions Case No.86/2022 pending before Additional SessionsJudge, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon arising out of First Information Report videCrime No.104/2018 dated 03.04.2018 registered with Railway Police Station,Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 306 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.B. Patil for applicants, learned APPMr. A.D. Wange for respondent No.1 and learned appointed Advocate Mr. S.V.Dixit for respondent No.2. 3Cri.Appln_2985_20233Learned Advocate appearing for applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge sheet including First Information Report and submits thateven after taking into consideration entire material, that has been collectedduring the course of investigation, it cannot be stated that present applicantshad abetted the commission of suicide. Present applicant Nos.1 and 3 wereworking in the Pune office and applicant No.2 was working in Mumbai officeof one Writers Safeguard Private Limited Company. The said company hadmade an agreement through Hitachi India Private Limited and accepted thework of feeding cash amount, that is, the currency notes in ATM machines ofAxix Bank, HDFC, ICICI, SBI, Bank of Maharashtra, Dena Bank and CanaraBank etc. Hitachi company used to send e-mail in respect of indent loadingplan thereafter the company of applicants used to accept the cash i.e.currency notes from the concerned Bank and used to deposit the sameamount in the specified ATM machines. Their company had sought employeefrom one Adecco India Private Limited and accordingly, the said companyhad forwarded Yogesh Vijaysingh Pardeshi as ‘ATM Operator’ on contract basisfrom 25.09.2017 to 24.09.2018. Around 28.10.2017 it was found that saidYogesh had stolen amount of Rs.13,65,000/- from ATM machine by misusingpassword. This fact came to knowledge on 01.11.2017 at the time ofinspection. Applicant No.1 had approached Ranjangaon Police Station andlodged First Information Report against Yogesh for the offence punishable 4Cri.Appln_2985_2023under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Deepak,brother of Yogesh, was co-accused. When the investigation in the said CrimeNo.161/2017 was going on, unfortunately, Yogesh committed suicide on05.11.2017. Now, in connection with the said suicide it is stated that Yogeshhas left a suicide note involving present applicants. However, if the suicidenote is perused, it is dated 02.11.2017 and there is gap of about three daysbetween writing of suicide note and actual commission of the same. At nopoint of time present applicants were in contact with Yogesh. The entirecharge sheet does not give a specific incidences which could be said to be theincidences of abetment. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 had approached this Court byfiling Criminal Application No.2812 of 2018 and it was decided on25.02.2019 i.e. prior to filing of charge sheet. The said application wasrejected by giving reasons, however, it was prior to filing of charge sheet i.e.on 02.03.2022. Now, every evidence is before this Court and it would clearthat there was absolutely no contact between applicants and deceased. If wetake contents of charge sheet as it is, it is only stated that Manager Ashwaq,Umesh, Supervisor Anil Mane, Bhosale were torturing him. Acts of torturewere not stated by him at all and, therefore, it would be unjust to askapplicants to face the trial. 4Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate appointed to
Legal Reasoning
5Cri.Appln_2985_2023represent cause of respondent No.2, as he failed to appear though served,strongly opposed the application. They submit that even the handwritingexpert’s opinion has been received and it states that suicide note is in thehandwriting of deceased. It was clearly stated in the suicide note thatpresent applicants used to harass deceased. Informant is father of deceasedYogesh. Statement of his brother Deepak would show that Yogesh was falselyinvolved in the said case of theft of amount from ATM machine and theywere pressurizing him to make that amount good to the company. Suchindirect confession and recovery would certainly amounts to abet thecommission of crime and, therefore, this is not a fit case where the Courtshould exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. 5Before turning to the facts, we would like to consider the legalpoint involved in the matter, that is, what are the ingredients to be evenprima facie shown by prosecution in such matters and for that purpose wewould like to rely on the decision in Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others vs.State of Maharashtra and another [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328], Sanju aliasSanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 Cri.L.J. 2796],Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another [(2010) 8 SCC 628],S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.)] and 6Cri.Appln_2985_2023R. Shashirekha vs. State of Karnataka and others [2025 INSC 402]. Takinginto consideration the ratio laid down in all these authorities and the fact inthe present case, definitely, ingredients of any of the offences under whichcharge sheet is filed are not at all attracted. Further, it has been observed inone of the recent Judgments in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of MadhyaPradesh [2025 INSC 76] that merely for the satisfaction of informantInvestigating Officer should not file charge sheet against accused, arrayed inoffence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In Amalendu Pal @Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] similar view that of M.Mohan (supra) is taken, wherein it was held that - “In a case of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct orindirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely onthe allegation of harassment without there being any positive actionproximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused whichled or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in termsof Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would not be sustainable.”6Taking into consideration the above legal position, the factualsituation in the matter is considered. It appears that deceased Yogeshcommitted suicide by jumping before train. This fact is coming on recordthrough the AD, Postmortem Report, statement of train driver VijaykumarAnkaluram Kureti. Therefore, there is no dispute of the fact that Yogesh 7Cri.Appln_2985_2023committed suicide, but the question is, whether the present applicants hadabetted commission of suicide ? Therefore, in order to show the said primafacie fact the prosecution appears to be relying mainly on statement of hisbrother Deepak, who is in fact, the co-accused in the offence registeredagainst him. His statement would show that he was called on 02.11.2017 byNagardevla Police Station, wherein he was told about the fact that cash hasbeen stolen by deceased Yogesh and if that amount is returned then theoffence will not be registered. He was asked to come on the next date. Hewent to Police Station on the next date, but simultaneously the process ofregistering First Information Report was going on. He started searching forhis brother, but his brother could not be found on that day and thereafter hecould not establish contact with his brother. He could get the informationabout the suicide only on 05.11.2017. That means, even Deepak had noknowledge about the whereabouts of Yogesh from 02.11.2017 to 05.11.2017.He does not say that when it was made known to him that Yogesh hascommitted theft of the cash on 02.11.2017, then whether he had contactedYogesh and what was the reaction of Yogesh ? But witness Deepak says thathe had call from Yogesh on 01.11.2017 around 1.30 p.m., whereupon it wasdisclosed that applicants are pressurizing him to accept the fact that he hascommitted theft of cash. Rather Deepak says that after 01.11.2017 till05.11.2017 he had no talks with Yogesh. If we consider the suicide note, for 8Cri.Appln_2985_2023which now there is opinion of handwriting expert that it is written bydeceased, it would show that it was written on 02.11.2017. However, theactual suicide has been committed on 05.11.2017. Therefore, the saidsuicide note cannot be considered under Section 32(1) of the IndianEvidence Act. Further, as aforesaid, in R. Shashirekha (supra) there has tobe a proximity between the suicide note and actual commission of suicide.None of the witnesses has stated that after 01.11.2017 present applicants hadmet or tried to contact Yogesh in any manner. The CDR has been produced,but it is not giving any further details regarding communication between anyof the applicants and Yogesh. The rejection of earlier application by applicantNos.1 to 3 will not be the hurdle here, because after filing of charge sheetcertainly applicants can approach this Court. As the basic ingredients ofoffence are not even prima facie shown, we take this to be the fit case wherewe should exercise our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed.ii)The proceedings in Sessions Case No.86/2022 pending beforeAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon arising out of First 9Cri.Appln_2985_2023Information Report vide Crime No.104/2018 dated 03.04.2018 registeredwith Railway Police Station, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offencepunishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, stands quashed and set aside as against applicants viz. 1) UmeshShivram Patil, 2) Pradeep Bhimrao Bhosale, 3) Ashwaq Iqbal Sayyed and 4)Anil Tulshiram Mane.iii)Fees of appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (RupeesTen Thousand only), to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,Aurangabad. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd