High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 2310 / 20201.Ravindra Mahadu Salunke alias SalunkheAge : 54 years, Occu. Professor,2.Kavita Ravindra SalunkeAge : 48 years, Occu. Housewife,Both R/o : Plot No.45, Bansilal Nagar Nandurbar, Tq. And Dist. Nandurbar.…ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Nandurbar Upnagar Police Station,Tq. And District Nandurbar.2.Kaustubh Ravindra ChaudhariAge : 22 years, Occu. Household,R/o Plot No.42, Laxminagar, Korit Road,Tq. And District Nandurbar. ...RespondentsWITHCriminal Application No. 294 / 2021Sunil Bhavlal @ Bhaulal Mahajan,Age : 50 years, Occu. Business,R/o : Plot No.10, ShahapurTq. And Dist. Burhanpura (MP). …ApplicantVersus1.The State of MaharashtraCopy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad.2.Kaustubh Ravindra ChaudhariAge : 22 years, Occu. Household,R/o Plot No.42, Laxminagar, Korit Road,Tq. And District Nandurbar. ...Respondents 2 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc Criminal Writ Petition No. 1513 / 2020Anil s/o Ranchod ChaudhariAge : 55 years, Occu. Business,R/o Plot No46, Laxmi Nagar,Tq. And District Nandurbar.…PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraCopy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad.2.Kaustubh Ravindra ChaudhariAge : 22 years, Occu. Household,R/o Plot No.42, Laxminagar, Korit Road,Tq. And District Nandurbar. ...Respondents….Criminal Application No. 2425 / 2020Mukesh Fulchand WadekarAge : 57 years, Occu. Professor,R/o Plot No.97, Shriram Nagar,Tq. And District Nandurbar. …Applicant Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Nandurbar Upnagar Police Station,Tq. And District Nandurbar.2.Kaustubh Ravindra ChaudhariAge : 22 years, Occu. Household,R/o Plot No.42, Laxminagar, Korit Road,Tq. And District Nandurbar. ...Respondents 3 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc ...Advocate for Applicants in Cri. Application No.2310/2020 : Mr. N.S. Jaju h/f Mr. V.D.KhivesaraAdvocate for petitioner in Cri. Writ petition No.2425/2020 : Mr. N.S. Jaju h/f Mr.P.P. PatniAdvocate for Applicant in Cri. Application No.294/2021 : Mr. N.S. GhanekarAdvocate for petitioner in Cri. Writ petition No.1513/2020 : Mr. Rahul S. PawarAdvocate for Petitioners in all petitions : Mr. Avinash A. PhadAPP for the Respondents/State in all matters : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 30 APRIL 2024 FINAL ORDER [Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :.Heard both the sides finally. 2.The applicant/petitioners are seeking quashment of F.I.R. bearingC.R. No.546/2020 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Dist.Nandurbar for offences under Sections 306, 406, 420, 506 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and consequential charge-sheet and R.C.C.No.114/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar.Applicants/petitioners are alleged to have abetted suicide of one RavindraShamrao Chaudhari. 3.Informant happens to be son of deceased Ravindra who wasPrincipal in a college at Nandurbar. It is reported by the informant that in
Legal Reasoning
4 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc the year 2013 to secure admission to his elder sister, the deceased isalleged to have given Rs.22,00,000/- to Mr. Navalkishor Shinde. Again inthe year 2014 amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was given for the purpose ofadmission to three persons. Despite that neither admission could bemade, nor was amount returned. The persons who were given money wereintroduced by one of the petitioners in the present matter i.e. AnilChaudhari. In the year 2015, Anil is alleged to have borrowedRs.15,00,000/- from the deceased. He avoided repayment. It is furtheralleged that in the last year, deceased had invested Rs.30,00,000/- in thebusiness of applicant-Sunil Mahajan but same was not returned to him. 4.It is further alleged that the applicants and other persons dodgedrepayment of amounts to the deceased and his financial condition becameprecarious which him to borrow Rs.10,00,000/- from one of the applicants,Ravindra Salunke. He was unable to repay the amount and he subjected toinsulting treatment. He was pressurized to issue cheque of Rs.10,00,000/-It is further alleged that deceased had invested Rs.50,00,000/- in themedical store at Nemas Hospital run by Mukesh Wadekar who also refusedto return the money. In this manner, the accused persons deceiveddeceased which left him devastated. He ultimately resorted to suicide on16.10.2022, leaving behind a suicide note. 5. (A)Learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application 5 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc No.294/2021 Mr. Nilesh Ghanekar submits that no offence is made out forabetment or conspiracy to drive deceased to commit suicide. It is furthersubmitted that the deceased could have resorted to civil proceeding torecover the money or could have approached police or the competentauthority. There is no material to show that he was subjected toharassment. There is no direct or indirect material to show incitement.There is no positive action on the part of the accused proximate to thetime of the occurrence which could have compelled the deceased tocommit suicide. He would further submit that no intention can begathered from the material collected during the investigation. It isfurther submitted that there are bank statements to show that applicantsreturned the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the deceased.(B).Learned Counsel Mr. Rahul Pawar for the petitioner in CriminalWrit Petition No.1513/2020 adopts above submissions. Additionally, hesubmitted that the deceased himself created financial crunch. There aremultiple transactions entered by the deceased with various persons. Nooffence can be made out under Section 306 or under Section 406, 420, 506of IPC. (C).Learned Counsel Mr. V.D. Khivsara, for the applicants in CriminalApplication No.2310/2021 adopts above submissions. Additionally, it issubmitted that cheque which was given by deceased was dishonored. Itwas in fact loss caused to him. It is vehemently submitted that his client 6 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc was not creditor of the deceased and no allegations of harassment andabetment can be made against him. Learned Counsel relies on judgmentof Hafeez Rahman Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)664. (D).Learned Counsel Mr. Jaju in Criminal Writ Petition No.2425/2021would submit that there is no material to indicate that amount ofRs.50,00,000/- was invested in the medical store at Nemas Hospital by thedeceased. For want of material particulars, no case of either anyincitement or harassment can be made out against him. He cited numberof judgments in support of submissions. 6.Learned APP would vehemently oppose the submissions of thelearned Counsels for the applicants/petitioners. He would submit that asuicide note is collected during the course of investigation and statementshave been recorded which disclose involvement of the applicants/petitioners. He would submit that deceased was defrauded by theapplicants who was required to face serious financial crunch. Due to theadamant attitude and dishonest conduct of the applicants/petitioners, thedeceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. He wouldsubmit that if the matter is put to the trial, the prosecution would be in aposition to bring home the guilt of the applicants. He relies on thejudgment in the matter of Didigam Bikshapathi and Another Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 403. 7 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc 7.We have considered rival submissions of the parties and have alsogone through the papers of the investigation. FIR and the statementsshow that deceased entered into multiple transactions with the applicantsand others at different point of time. He was an educated person workingas a Principal and most of the transactions appear to be in cash withoutthere being any record. It is very difficult to believe that an educatedperson would blindly lend money or invest cash amount for somebusiness. We do not find any specific wilful act, incitement or conspiracyon the part of the applicants/petitioners which would come within ambitof abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC. The dodging of therepayment or in case of applicant-Ravindra, insistance for the repaymentwould not be sufficient to constitute offence under Section 306. There isabsence of positive action proximate to the time of suicide. 8.It reveals from record that there is no record to demonstrate thatthere was any intention for subjecting the deceased to allege harassmentso as to drive him to commit suicide. Deceased was holding land atShahpur, Taluka and District Burhanpur (State of Madhya Pradesh) whichhad once fetched Rs.42,00,000/- per year. The genesis of the prosecutionof lending money in cash without maintaining record and investing hugeamount in some business do not appeal to the reasons. There is nomaterial to prima facie indicate that deceased had lend money to differentpersons and invested in business. We do not find any material on recordto show that the harassment was of such magnitude so as to leave 8 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc deceased with no alternative but to commit suicide. 9.Learned Counsel Mr. Jaju referred to the judgment of the DivisionBench in the matter of Gulab Yohan Pandit Vs. State of Maharashtra. Wehave considered paragraph no.12. We find merit in the submissions thatmere fact that the applicants/petitioners are named in the suicidal notethat cannot be a ground to fasten them with charge of abetment. We havealso considered paragraph nos. 15 to 19 of the same judgment. We havealso considered law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of M.Mohan Vs. State as well as judgment of the Division Bench in the matter ofHafiz (supra). It is laid down in paragraph no.23 that insistence for moneyby the accused on account of some dealing between the parties does notmean abetment of suicide. We propose to follow the judgment.10.We have already recorded that it is difficult to conceive thatdeceased, being highly educated, could enter into huge monetorytransaction without keeping any record. There is nothing on record toshow entrustment of money to applicants/petitioners. Neither, is thereany material to show that he was induced to part with money. On thecontrary, he was found to have issued a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs to one of theapplicants/accused. We have no hesitation to hold that allegation ofcriminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation areimprobable. The offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 are liable to bequashed. 9 945.Cri.Appln.-2310-2020 & Ors.doc 11.We are of the considered view that it would be abuse of process oflaw to proceed against the applicants/petitioners. The suicidal notementioning the names of the applicants/petitioners would not besufficient to drive them to face prosecution for offence under Section 306.The suicidal note lacks material particulars. Hence the judgment cited bythe learned APP in the matter of Didigam Bikshapathi and Another (supra)are not applicable. The applicants/petitioners succeed to make out theircase within parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter ofState of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604. We,therefore, pass following order :ORDERi.Criminal Application and Criminal Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent of applicants/petitioners.ii.Impugned FIR and consequential R.C.C. No.114/2023 are quashed and set aside to the extent of applicants/petitioners. SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGEN A J E E B...