High Court
Legal Reasoning
838_Cri.Appln_4018_2022wherein it has been observed that -“19.By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that inorder to make 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. It has been furtherheld that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet thedeceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC[See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should haveleft the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her lifeand that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of director indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Palalias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M.Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State ofChhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618]. 20.These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court inMahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025 INSC 76].”8As the entire material that has been collected in the investigationfails to make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code, case is made out for interference under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure. As regards the other sections are concerned,that is Sections 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 938_Cri.Appln_4018_2022those are non cognizable. With these observations, we pass following order ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed.ii)Sessions Case No.10/2024 pending before learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Basmath arising out of First Information Report vide CrimeNo.383/2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered with City Police Station, Basmathand Charge Sheet No.301/2023 i.e. proceedings in Regular Criminal CaseNo.252/2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set asideas against applicants viz. 1) Vacchalabai w/o Pralhad Jondhale and 2)Mangalbai @ Bayabai w/o Ashok Khillare. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd
Arguments
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD38 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4018 OF 20221Vacchalabai w/o Pralhad Jondhale,Age 55 yrs., Occ. Household,2Mangalbai @ Bayabai w/o Ashok Khillare,Age 54 yrs., Occ. Household,Both are r/o Ambedkarnagar, Basmath,Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station, Basmath,Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. 2Anita Kishor Sarkate,Age 40 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Ambedkarnagar, Basmath,Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. … Respondents...Mr. B.N. Magar, Advocate for applicantsMr. V.K. Kotecha, APP for respondent No.1Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for respondent No.2 - absent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.DATE:10th FEBRUARY, 2025 238_Cri.Appln_4018_2022ORDER :1Present application has been filed initially for quashing FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.383/2022 registered with Basmath CityPolice Station, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli on 19.09.2022 and thereafter byway of amendment for quashing Charge Sheet bearing No.301/2023 i.e.proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.252/2023 pending before learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Basmath, for the offence punishable underSection 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.N. Magar for applicants andlearned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent No.1. Learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 is absent. 3It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of applicants thatperusal of contents of First Information Report and charge sheet will notmake the offence under Sections 306, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for applicants has taken us throughcontents of First Information Report and material collected in the chargesheet. He submits that informant – respondent No.2 was admittedly notpresent on the day of incident, but she states about taking hand loan of 338_Cri.Appln_4018_2022Rs.5,000/- a year prior to First Information Report on account of treatment tothe deceased. She states that when after two months applicant No.1 hadasked for the refund of hand loan, the informant and her husband were nothaving money, whereupon, applicant No.1 asked them to give their Aadharcards, Voters cards, SBI passbook of both of them under the pretext that shewould take her amount through the Bachat Gat. She did not return thosedocuments. Thereafter, several times applicant No.1 and sometimesapplicant No.2 used to make demand of the remaining amount. Theinformant says that they had returned about Rs.45,000/- towards loanamount but the applicants have not returned the documents of informant andher husband. Informant has relied on the information that was supplied toher by her son that in the morning there was quarrel between the presentapplicants and deceased. The said dispute was witnessed by severalwitnesses and when the present applicants had demanded the money,assaulted deceased, deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in thehouse. According to witness Amol Landge, the Branch Manager of oneSpandana Sphurti Finance Limited, who had given loan for purchase of shegoats, cow, she buffaloes, hen etc., in that group of more than four ladiessuch loan was given but the informant had not repaid her loan amount.Ultimately, the said bank has made the account of the informant as NPA on07.08.2022 itself. Therefore, prior to 15.09.2022 there was no outstanding 438_Cri.Appln_4018_2022amount in respect of that loan. In the Postmortem Report as well as the C.A.report it has come on record that there was alcoholic substance in thestomach of the deceased. Therefore, possibility of he committing suicideunder the influence of liquor cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it would beunjust to ask the applicants to face the trial. 4Learned APP has strongly opposed the application and hesubmits that the informant has clearly stated that the documents of informantand deceased were kept by applicant No.1 with her and in spite of repaymentof huge amount towards hand loan those documents have not been returned.Just few hours prior to suicide present applicants had assaulted deceased inpublic on the demand of amount and demand of deceased to return thedocuments. It was the active role that is played by applicants and due to theharassment of applicants the suicide has been committed, which is definitelycovered under the definition under Section 109 and 306 of the Indian PenalCode. Now, the charge sheet is filed, therefore, let the trial is proceed. 5The first and the foremost is the legal position of law. We wouldlike to take note of the decision in Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others vs. Stateof Maharashtra and another [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328], Sanju alias SanjaySingh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 Cri.L.J. 2796], Madan 538_Cri.Appln_4018_2022Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another [(2010) 8 SCC 628] and S.S.Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.)]. In allthese cases Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified about the ingredients thoseare required to be considered in a case involving Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code. Here, the postmortem report, inquest panchnama and the basicfacts would certainly show that deceased Kishor Sarkate had committedsuicide by hanging on 15.09.2022. Now, the question is – Whether thatsuicide was the result of abetment by present applicants ? As per FirstInformation Report, the amount of Rs.5,000/- was taken somewhere aroundSeptember, 2021 by deceased Kishor for his treatment. She had demandedthe amount within a period of two months. At that time, the informant wasnot having the amount and according to her, upon the promise that theapplicant would take the said amount from Bachat Gat by way of land, hewould treat that the said loan amount has been mitigated. Here, in this case,the informant has not clarified as to whether the applications were presentedstating to be the papers of loan by informant with the finance company. Now,when words those are used are “.……………..... eyk cpr xVkps mpywunsrks..................” is to be interpreted. It would show that the amount has to beraised from a finance company or some other form where the amount is sodisbursed as loan. For that purpose definitely documents are necessary in theform of application whether surety is to be taken or not would then depend 638_Cri.Appln_4018_2022upon the approach of the bank and for what purpose the amount is raised.No such documents have been seized under the investigation nor it is thecase of respondent No.2 that whatever the documents are with the financecompany those do not bear her thumb marks. The finance company ManagerMr. Amol Landge says that they take Aadhar card and other documents alongwith application, but they take the original for scanning the bar code andthey give the original documents to the customer. Therefore, there was noquestion of documents being withheld by finance company. Even if for thesake of arguments it is accepted that those documents are with the applicantsand she was demanding the so called repayment of loan since about a yearprior to 15.09.2022, that cannot be taken as an act of abetment for suicide. 6We would then consider the evidence that is collected in respectof alleged incident dated 15.09.2022. For that purpose the prosecutionintends to rely on the statements of Akash Kishor Sarkate – son of deceasedand respondent No.2, Smt. Vachchhalabai Haribhau Bhalerao – mother ofinformant residing in the vicinity in same town and Ranjana PrakashDhabdge, r/o same area. All these three persons have stated that there werealtercations between present applicants, witness Vachchhalabai Bhalerao anddeceased Kishor when the present applicants demanded the refund of loanfrom Vachchhalabai Bhalerao and Kishor. It is also stated by them that these 738_Cri.Appln_4018_2022two applicants had then abused Kishor in filthy language. Applicant No.1caught hold of collar of Kishor and applicant No.2 had assaulted him bychappal. They had pushed Vachchhalabai Bhalerao, as a result of which shefell down on the ground. We take this incident as it is; yet, this incidentcannot be termed as an act of abetment as the intention behind the same wasnot at all that Kishor should go and commit suicide. Deceased Kishor couldhave approached police for the alleged act of applicants. In other words, hecould have resorted to the legal method. In this background the lodging ofFirst Information Report on 19.09.2022 i.e. four days after the incidentappears to be an afterthought act. Even when son Akash had left father totheir house and asked him to go to sleep, it appears to be that it was not inhis mind nor there was any such dialogue between him and deceased Kishorthat Kishor felt like committing suicide because of the act. Therefore,whatever the reaction is, does not appear to be proportionate to the allegedact of assault. We do not want to go into aspect as to whether the saidsuicide was as a result of drinking of liquor, but the final cause of death thathas been given is “hanging with alcohol consumption”. 7We would like to rely on the decision in Ayyub and others vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7371 of 2024] decided on 07.02.2025,