High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3860 OF 20241Ganesh Duryodhan Naik,Age 34 yrs., Occ. Agri./Labourer,R/o Veergaon, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 2Ramdas Duryodhan Naik,Age 32 yrs., Occ. Agri./Labourer,R/o Veergaon, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Superintendent of Police,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 2In-charge Officer,Veergaon Police Station,Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. 3Mohini wd/o Yogesh Somvanshi,Age 41 yrs., Occ. Housewife,R/o Satana, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. … Respondents...Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate for applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2Mr. Shriram Deshmukh, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.3... 2Cri.Appln_3860_2024CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.RESERVED ON :27th JUNE, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :24th JULY, 2025ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the proceedings in SessionsCase No.161/2023 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge,Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, arising out of First InformationReport vide Crime No.289/2022 dated 19.07.2022 registered with PoliceStation, Vaijapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.R. Shelke for applicants, learnedAPP Mr. G.A. Kulkarni for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned appointedAdvocate Mr. Shriram Deshmukh for respondent No.3. 3Learned Advocate appearing for applicants has taken us throughentire charge sheet and submits that even if we take the contents of FirstInformation Report as it is; yet, the ingredients of offence under Sections306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code will not getattracted. 3Cri.Appln_3860_20244Respondent No.3 is the widow of Yogesh Girjaba Somwanshi.She states that agricultural land bearing Gat No.58 in Satana, Tq. Vaijapur,Dist. Aurangabad stands in the name of her husband. Her husband had takenamount of Rs.50,000/- as hand loan from applicant No.1. At that timeapplicant No.1 had put condition that 20 Gunthas of land from 1½ acreshould be given by way of sale deed, then only he would give hand loan.Accordingly, the sale deed was executed by Yogesh in favour of applicantNo.1. She has also stated that Yogesh had taken hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-about a year prior to First Information Report from applicant No.2, who isreal brother of applicant No.1. A separate sale deed was executed in favourof applicant No.2 in respect of 20 Gunthas of land from remaining land ofGat No.58. She also states that amount of Rs.20,000/- was taken as handloan by her husband from one Bhanudas Laxman Sakhare. Then she statesthat all the three persons were harassing her husband by saying that heshould give possession of respective pieces of land to them. Yogesh used tosay that he would return the amount and they should execute the exchangeddocument then. Yogesh was abused and assaulted and threatened to kill bythe three persons. Applicants used to visit the house of Yogesh frequentlyand used to pressurize him for parting with possession. The applicants werecontinuously harassing and giving threats to kill to Yogesh. Informant saysthat she went to the field around 11.00 a.m. on 19.07.2022. Her children 4Cri.Appln_3860_2024were out of the house. She returned home around 6.00 p.m. The door ofhouse was latched from inside and son Soham was playing outside the house.Informant asked Soham as to when his father has slept and why he is notopening the door. Soham told that he returned around 12.00 p.m. and sincethen he called father to open the door, but father is not opening it and,therefore, he is playing outside the house. They tried to wake Yogesh up, butthere was no response. Therefore, she piped from the window and foundthat Yogesh has hanged himself to the angle of the house. Thereafter, shecalled the relatives and then door of the house was forcibly opened. Yogeshwas brought down. She found mobile of Yogesh in his pocket and there wasalso one chit, that was found in his pocket along with mobile. Even in themobile there was a video made by Yogesh informing similarly as per thesuicide note and, therefore, the informant lodged First Information Report on20.07.2022. The learned Advocate for applicants submits that presentapplicants have lodged a civil suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.473/2022 againstinformant on 16.11.2022 and they had filed an application for interiminjunction at Exh.5. Present informant has also filed counter claim andsought temporary injunction by filing application Exh.22. Common orderwas passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Vaijapur on08.03.2023, thereby allowing both the applications and both the parties weredirected to maintain status quo till the final decision of the suit. The present 5Cri.Appln_3860_2024applicants preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.20/2023 and by orderdated 07.12.2023 learned Adhoc District Judge-2, Vaijapur modified theorder by allowing the appeal. Application Exh.5 i.e. application filed fortemporary injunction by applicants was allowed and informant and othershave been restrained from disturbing the possession of plaintiffs i.e. presentapplicants over the suit property till the decision of the suit. The informantapproached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2638 of 2024 and by orderdated 04.02.2025 Hon’ble the Single Bench of this Court dismissed thepetition holding that prima facie there is evidence to show that presentapplicants are in possession of the suit property. In fact, if we consider boththe sale deeds i.e. in favour of applicant Nos.1 and 2 respectively executed ondifferent dates, then it can be seen that in respect of applicant No.1, 20Gunthas of land was sold for Rs.3,02,000/-. The informant was party to thedocument. The entire amount of Rs.3,02,000/- was sent to the bank accountof Yogesh through RTGS. The sale deed in favour of applicant No.2 for 20Gunthas was also for Rs.3,02,000/- and that amount was also given throughRTGS on the bank account of Yogesh. The informant is also party to the saiddocument also. Therefore, it cannot be stated that amount of Rs.50,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/- was only taken as hand loan. There was no question ofharassing the deceased. 6Cri.Appln_3860_20245Learned Advocate for applicants further submits that as regardssuicide note is concerned, it was sent for Handwriting Expert’s opinion, butthen the Handwriting Expert requested for natural handwriting of thedeceased. By communication dated 08.02.2023 the Investigating Officerinformed the Handwriting Expert that he had contacted the informant andasked for some more pieces of natural handwriting of deceased, but sheexpressed inability and, therefore, it was stated that the opinion should begiven only on the basis of whatever was sent. Some copies of loanapplication forms or opening of Savings Account in the bank appears to havebeen collected and sent, however, the Handwriting Expert’s opinion has notbeen received. As regards the video recording is concerned, the ForensicScience Laboratory, Aurangabad has given a report that since the sample ofvoice of deceased was not made available, it is not possible for them toanalyse the video recording. In spite of all these things if we take the thingsas it is; yet, the ingredients of offence are not made out. Learned Advocatefor applicants relies on the decision in Mahendra Awase vs. State of MadhyaPradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 801], V.P. Singh etc. vs. State of Punjab and others[2022 SCC OnLine SC 1999] and Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujaratand another [(2010) 8 SCC 628] to support his contention that theingredients are not attracted. 7Cri.Appln_3860_20246Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate appointed torepresent the cause of respondent No.3 – original informant strongly opposedthe application and submit that now the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. Let there be trial. The informant being the wife of deceasedwas aware about what was happening in the life of deceased. Though it isstated that sale deeds were executed for 20 Gunthas each separately infavour of applicant Nos.1 and 2, this fact is admitted by informant in her FirstInformation Report, but she states that real nature of transaction wasdifferent and it is now the subject-matter before the Civil Court. Deceasedhas left suicide note in writing as well as has made the videography of his laststatement leading to the reason for his death. Being the electronic documentthat can be considered as a Dying Declaration and that can be proved.Everything need not be through a third expert but the near relative can alsoprove the handwriting and signature as well as can prove the voice ofdeceased. Therefore, when the circumstances amounting to abetment havebeen narrated, then let there be a trial. 7Here, we would also like to rely on Madan Mohan Singh (supra),which carves out as to what should be proved or brought on record, even atthe prima facie stage. In other words, what are the ingredients that those arerequired to be seen when there is offence under Section 306 of the Indian 8Cri.Appln_3860_2024Penal Code have been stated in paragraph No.12, which is reproduced thus -“In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specificabetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of theaccused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the personconcerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention ofthe accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commitsuicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC.We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there beingany material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or inthe so-called suicide note.”7.1Further, in Mahendra Awase (supra) it has been observed that - “14.In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another[(2010) 8 SCC 628] this Court held that in order to bring out anoffence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated bySection 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bringabout the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetmentis required. It was further held that the intention of the accused toaid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a mustfor attracting Section 306.”It reiterates paragraph No.12 from Madan Mohan Singh (supra)and further observes in paragraph No.16 that - “In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC theremust be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence,the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide 9Cri.Appln_3860_2024must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doingcertain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the actof abetment by the person charged with the said offence must beproved and established by the prosecution before he could beconvicted under Section 306 IPC.”Therefore, we cannot confine ourselves to the charge sheet onlyin the matter but also the legal proceedings those have come up though afterthe First Information Report are required to be considered. The copies ofboth sale deeds have been collected by Investigating Officer and those are onrecord. When informant is party to both the documents, then it is hard tobelieve that the real nature of transaction was different. Even if for the sakeof arguments it is accepted that at the time when sale deeds were executedi.e. on 25.05.2021 and 09.12.2021 the hand loan was taken, then in theentire First Information Report there is absolutely no mention that at anypoint of time Yogesh had tried to return even part of the loan amount.Further, we will have to consider the nexus. Taking into consideration thedates of sale deed; the suicide has been committed on 19.07.2022 i.e. afterabout one year to 6-7 months, therefore, the said nexus is also notestablished. The informant has tried to say that many times the applicantshad assaulted and abused her husband, but at no point of time it appears thathe had ever approached Police Station. He had not even approached theCivil Court to protect his alleged possession. When and where those 10Cri.Appln_3860_2024instances of the assault and abuse had taken place has not been explained byher and it appears that all those alleged acts of harassment have been kept asvague as they can be. The transcript has been produced as regards the videoclip amounting to Dying Declaration and it is also reflected in statement ofnephew of deceased by name Aditya Arun Somwanshi. Even if we take thestatement as it is, it is also not giving details. It is stated that he hascommitted suicide due to harassment in the nature of giving threats to kill bypresent applicants as well as said Bhanudas Laxman Sakhare. Even if wetake the suicide note as it is, it is the same. In the suicide note it is statedthat Bhanudas Sakhare has falsely implicated him in an offence and cheatedhim. How Bhanudas Sakhare is connected to the present applicants has notbeen stated. In the suicide note it is stated that though the registry has beentaken by present applicants by paying the amount; yet, they were saying thatwithout taking the amount he should give the pieces of land, otherwise hewould be killed. As aforesaid, in the sale deed it is stated that he hasreceived the amount in both the sale deeds through RTGS in his bankaccount. If he had not received the amount, he ought to have agitated it andhe had the opportunity to get his grievances redressed. The statement ofaccount of bank appears to have not been collected by Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer could have also made investigation as to from whichbank account of applicants they had transferred the said amount and through 11Cri.Appln_3860_2024RTGS in the bank account of deceased. Now, the prosecution is also relyingupon CDR and SDR showing the conversation between deceased andapplicants even after the execution of sale deeds. According to us, the saidentry regarding conversation cannot be taken as evidence of threat calls. Atthe most, it would show the conversation, not more than that. 8Therefore, taking into consideration the analysis of facts as wellas law, we are of the opinion that contents of charge sheet do not prima facieattract the ingredients of Section 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and,therefore, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are askedto face the trial. Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)The proceedings in Sessions Case No.161/2023 pending beforelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad,arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.289/2022 dated19.07.2022 registered with Police Station, Vaijapur, for the offencepunishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as against applicantNos.1) Ganesh Duryodhan Naik and 2) Ramdas Duryodhan Naik. 12Cri.Appln_3860_2024iii)Fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only), to be paid by High Court Legal Services SubCommittee, Aurangabad. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd