High Court
Facts
cria-3965.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3965 OF 20231) Bansi S/o Bapu Khutekar, Age-65 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,2) Ashok S/o Bansi Khutekar, Age-40 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,3) Machindra S/o Bapurao Khutekar, Age-55 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,4) Manoj S/o Bapu Khutekar, Age-44 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Rahulnagar, North Jaikwadi, Paithan, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,5) Dipak S/o Bansi Khutekar, Age-35 years, Occu:Agri., R/o- As Above,6) Vikas S/o Bhausaheb Khutekar, Age-34 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-As Above,7) Sindhubai W/o Machindra Khutekar, Age-55 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,
Legal Reasoning
cria-3965.239sub-judice in the suit, the Tahsildar should not have proceeded.Further, how he can give possession of any piece of land toanybody, would be a question. If it was an application byapplicant No.1 for making him road available under theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code, then the proceedings shouldhave been undertaken under the said Code. There is nostipulation of pakka road to be given. If it was stated that thepakka road to be given then unless the land is acquired, it couldnot have been given. Therefore, certainly the frequent incidencesand the acts stated, which we are considering prima facie,appears to have led the deceased to commit suicide. 7.We are aware about the legal position as stated in decisionof Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,2002 Cri.L.J. 2796; Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat andanother, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S.S. Chheena vs. VijayKumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.).,Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009)16 SCC 605, Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995Supp. (3) SCC 438, Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., 1995Supp.(3) SCC 731, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh(2001) 9 SCC 618, State of Kerala and others vs. S. cria-3965.2310Unnikrishnan Nair and others, reported in AIR 2015 SupremeCourt 3351. However, in this case there are peculiarcircumstances which require evidence to be adduced and role ofeach of the applicant would then be clear. Ultimately thoseactivities which are alleged to have been committed by theapplicants amounted to abetment or not, would be considered bythe trial Court, but at the cost of repetition, we would say thatthere is evidence to the effect that such incidences were allegedand resisted by the deceased. Therefore, we do not find this tobe a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8.The Application stands rejected. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/JULY25
Arguments
cria-3965.2328) Ravindra S/o Ramesh Khutekar, Age-35 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,9) Meenabai W/o Ramesh Khutekar, Age-55 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,10) Archana W/o Ravindra Khutekar, Age-35 years, Occu:Household, R/o- As Above,11) Bhausaheb S/o Bapurao Khutekar, Age-64 years, Occu:Pensioner, R/o-Rahulnagar, Jaikwadi, Paithan, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad,12) Rani W/o Vikas Khutekar, Age-28 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Rahulnagar, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad, At present R/o-Beed By-pass, Behind Registry Office, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra,2) Arun S/o Sheshrao Khutekar, Age-44 years, Occu:Private Coaching, R/o-Georai Bashi, Taluka-Paithan, District-Aurangabad, At present R/o-Bhakti Shobha Apartment, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Imran Khan Guftar Khan Durrani Advocate for Applicants. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.B. Parnere Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... cria-3965.233 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed for quashing theproceedings in R.C.C. No.331 of 2023 pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, District-Aurangabad,arising out of the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”)vide Crime No. 204 of 2022, registered with Police Station,M.I.D.C., Paithan, Taluka-Paithan, District-Ahmednagar for theoffence punishable under Sections 306, 143, 447, 323, 504, 506of the Indian Penal Code, and for quashing the consequentproceedings in Sessions Case No.38 of 2024 pending before thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Durrani for the applicants,learned APP Mr. Kulkarni for respondent No.1 and learnedAdvocate Mr. Parnere for respondent No.2. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge-sheet including the FIR. He submits that in the cria-3965.234FIR which was lodged on 31st August 2022, there is absolutely nomention of suicide note left by the deceased. However, when hissupplementary statement came to be recorded on 5th September2022, the informant has stated that there was a chit left by hisfather before committing the suicide, in the pocket of his pant.Therefore, whatever chit has been recovered, is doubtful. Hefurther states that in the FIR as well as the entire charge-sheet,it can be seen that the fact which is not disputed is that there isdispute in respect of immovable property i.e. agricultural land,between the applicants and the deceased father of theinformant. The dispute is pending with Paithan Court as well asPaithan Tahsil Office, since last eight moths prior to the incident.It is then stated that on 24th August 2022, around 5.30 p.m. allthe accused persons unauthorizedly entered the agriculturalland, assaulted the deceased Sheshrao, abused and gave threatsto kill him. The dispute is stated to have been resolved by oneGaurav Khutekar and Gautam Khutekar. No offence came to beregistered on the basis of that incident but then it is stated in theFIR and the charge-sheet that the accused persons had enteredthe agricultural land belonging to the deceased with J.C.B. andTractor on 30th August 2022 and started digging activities bymaking encroachment on the agricultural land. On that day also cria-3965.235no offence was immediately lodged. Later on in thesupplementary statement an improvement has been made thatdeceased had not gone to the local police station due to the fearof the police officer Nagargoje but went to the office of DistrictSuperintendent of Police, Aurangabad (Rural). Of course thatwas another incident, which has been improved wherein it isstated that some of the accused persons had rushed towardsdeceased as well as his sister-in-law Kantabai while abusingthem. The informant then states that he along with Kantabai,had gone to M.I.D.C. Police Station, Paithan to lodge the reportand behind their back, the applicants entered the agriculturalland with J.C.B. and Tractor. All the family members of theapplicants are falsely involved. The statements of the witnessesare stereo typed and therefore with this evidence it cannot bestated that the applicants had abetted the commission of suicide.There could not have been any intention of the applicants, evenif we take the acts alleged as it is, that deceased should commitsuicide.4.Learned Advocate for the applicants, in support of hissubmissions, relies on the decision in R.S. Shashirekha vs. Stateof Karnataka, 2025, SCC OnLine SC 671, Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh cria-3965.236Chavda and others vs. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116,Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC801.5.Learned APP for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submittedthat all the acts which are direct or indirect amounting toabetment are required to be considered. Harassment by theapplicants was to such an extent and so continuous thatdeceased felt that he has not been left with any other option butto commit suicide. The spot panchnama has been carried out on31st August 2022, itself between 9.30 am. to 10.15 a.m. In thespot panchnama itself it has been stated that the suicide notewhich was found in the pocket of the pant of the deceased hasbeen seized. Therefore, there is no question of improvement bythe informant in respect of the suicide note. The inquestpanchnama, statements of witnesses and the postmortem reportwould establish that death of Sheshrao was due to hanging. Thesuicide note has been sent for analysis to the handwriting expertand the report is yet to arrive. Therefore, taking intoconsideration the contents of the suicide note as it is, it can beseen that all the acts of the applicants and how they have been cria-3965.237protected by Tahsildar, Police Officer has been stated. There wasno order in favour of the applicants, still they were entering thefield of the deceased time and again in order to grab the land.The deceased was an agriculturist and therefore, the land wasnear to his heart. Various applications which deceased hadwritten to Tahsildar regarding the activities of the applicants,copy of which have been collected and they have been madepart of the charge-sheet. Therefore, this is not a fit case wherethe Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.6.Here, it is to be noted at this stage that there is no disputeof the fact that Sheshrao has committed suicide by hanging on31st August 2022, around 6.30 a.m. The spot panchnama wascarried out between 9.30 a.m. to 10.15 a.m., in which it hasbeen specifically stated that a suicide note has been found in thepocket of the pant of the deceased. It is a long suicide notegiving details as to how he felt harassed. The said fact is alsostated by the informant in his FIR as well as his supplementarystatement, as well as by the other witnesses, some of whom arethe relatives of the deceased. Statements of employees fromrevenue department have also been taken, wherein it is stated cria-3965.238that time and again the deceased had given applications. Ofcourse they have stated that certain action was taken by therevenue officers, which deceased disputes. Further, it appearsthat application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, filed in Civil Suit bearing No.217 of 2022, cameto be rejected on 5th August 2022. It appears to be the fact thatthere was boundary dispute also and the measurement was tobe made. There is a document i.e. notice issued by Tahsildar,Paithan to the deceased stating that applicant - Bhausaheb BapuKhutekar and others have made an application to Tahsildar forthe measurement, fixing of boundaries and then laying a pakkaroad on the boundary of land Gut No.236. It is stated in the saidnotice that the measurement procedure has been completedthrough Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Paithan and the actionof giving possession would be taken up within seven days andtherefore, Sheshrao was called upon to give his say. It appearsthat he has given the say objecting the same. He has certainlytaken the objection regarding the jurisdiction of Tahsildar to givethe possession. This notice appears to have been issued on 17thMay 2022 and as aforesaid it appears that the temporaryinjunction application was rejected by the Civil Judge, JuniorDivision. Still when the objections raised by the plaintiff were