Dilip S/O Ramrao Shirasao And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4465 Bom

                                             1                   APL332.16.odt          




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                       
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO. 332 OF 2016
                                  ...

    1]    Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirsao,




                                                      
          Aged about 59 years, Occu. Service.

    2]    Sachin Manoharrao Agarkar,
          Aged 49 years, Occu. Service,




                                                 
    3]    Durgadas Nivrutti Khadse,
          Aged 52 years, Occu. Service,
                              
    4]    Himmat Laxman Manwar,
          Aged about 50 years, Occu. Service.
                             
    5]    Ravindra Padmakarrao Deshpande,
          Aged 53 years, Occu. Service

          All resident of Yavatmal,
      

          Tah. and Dist. Yavatmal.                    ..             APPLICANTS

                                    .. Versus ..
   



    1]     State of Maharashtra,
           Through Police Station Officer,
            Chandur Railway Police Station,





           Tal. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

    2]     Amol S/o Dinkar Jawalkar,
           Aged about 37 years, Occu. Not known,
           R/o Pimpri Meghe,
           Tah. & Dist. Wardha.              ..                NON-APPLICANTS





                                        ...........

    Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.G. Joshi, Advocate
    for the applicants.
    Mr. M. K. Pathan, Addl.Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no.1
    Mr. Shantanu K. Bhoyar, Advocate for non-applicant no.2

                                        ............




     ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2016 00:03:24 :::
                                       2                    APL332.16.odt           



                   CORAM : B.R. Gavai & V. M. Deshpande, JJ.

DATED : August 05, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. We have to deal with this unfortunate case wherein four

Judicial Officers of the Maharashtra State judiciary from Yavatmal

district, including the Principal District Judge of the said district,

have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside

the first information report for the offence punishable under Section

306 of the Indian penal Code, alleging that they are responsible for

the suicide committed by another Judicial Officer.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present application

are as under :

Applicant no.1 is a senior Judicial Officer and presently

posted as the Principal District Judge of Yavatmal district. Applicant

no.2 is also in the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division and presently

working as a Secretary of District Legal Services Authority at

Yavatmal. The other three applicants are also working as Civil

Judge, Senior Division at Yavatmal. A judicial officer namely Anup

Jawalkar was posted at Yavatmal as Civil Judge, Senior Division on

02.08.2014. Subsequently, he was transferred at Darwha within

3 APL332.16.odt

the same district on the same post on 01.10.2015. The dead body

of said Anup Jawalkar was found at a place near Chandur Railway in

Amravati district on railway track on 06.03.2016. Accordingly,

accidental death (AD) case came to be registered by Chandur

Railway police station. However, subsequently, non-applicant no.2

contending that when the articles of the deceased were shifted to

Pune, a suicide note was found wherein it was alleged that the

present applicants were responsible for suicide of the deceased,

Police Station.

lodged a report against the present applicants with Chandur-railway

On the basis of said oral report, an offence

punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code came to be registered vide Crime No. 113 of 2016 on

07.04.2016.

4. The present applicants have, therefore, approached this

Court by way of present application under Section 482 of the Code

of Civil Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings. Vide order

dated 04.05.2016, this Court issued notice to the respondents and

accordingly replies are filed by both the respondents.

5. Mr. Anil Mardikar, the learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the applicants submits that even taking the allegations

in the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no.2 and the suicide

note at its face value, no case is made out for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code so far as

4 APL332.16.odt

present applicants are concerned. He submits that the only

allegation, as could be found from the affidavit filed by the non-

applicant no.2, is that the wife of deceased was informed about the

alleged harassment by the applicant no.1. He submits that the

respondent no.2 does not have personal knowledge and the

affidavit filed by him is only on the basis of hearsay material. In

any case, he submits that even taking the allegations at its face

value, at the most what could be attributed is that the applicant

no.1, in discharge of his official duties, had done some act or

omissions on account of which, the deceased was aggrieved.

However, he submits that even taking the same to be true in

entirety, the same cannot be said to be an instigation to commit

suicide so as to bring the matter within the scope of Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned senior counsel submits that in any case, the

said allegations are also without any substance. He submits that as

a matter of fact, there was no case of harassment in transferring

the deceased to Darwha. He submits that the deceased was the

junior most Judicial Officer in the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division

and as such he was transferred to Darwha. He submits that it was

not the case of pick and choose. He further submits that the

allegation that the applicant no.1 ill-treated the deceased in the

workshop is also without substance. He submits that in any case, if

the deceased had any grievance against the present applicants, he

5 APL332.16.odt

could have very well made a representation either to the Hon'ble

Guardian Judge of said district or to the Registry of this Court. The

learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the allegations

made against the applicants are by way of an after thought. The

learned senior counsel further submits that in any case insofar as

applicant nos.2 to 4 are concerned, there is not even a whisper

against them in the affidavit of non-applicant no.2.

7. Mr. Bhoyar, the learned counsel appearing for the non-

applicant no.2 submits that the material placed on record would

show that harassment by the applicants was to such an extent that

the deceased was left with no other alternative but to give an end

to his life. The learned counsel submits that the deceased was

sincere, hardworking and devoted Judicial Officer and putting a blot

on his career and transferring him in the mid term, caused a great

mental turbulence to him, which led to commission of suicide. The

learned counsel submits that it is all done by the applicant no.1 and

rest of the applicants have abetted him. It is, therefore, submitted

that no case is made out for quashing and setting aside of the

charge sheet.

8. Mr. Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that the investigation is almost complete. He submits that

from the perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded, it

cannot be said that the first information report is wholly

unsustainable.

6 APL332.16.odt

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr.

Bhoyar, the learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant nos.1

and 2 submit that the application deserves to be dismissed.

10. The investigation is almost complete. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the entire papers

of investigation before us.

11. The law as to what are the requirements to constitute an

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is no more res

integra . The law is very well crystalized by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the catena of cases including in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay

Singh Sengar .vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2002

Cri.L.J. 2796 ; Madan Mohan Singh .vs. State of Gujrat and

another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 ; and in the case of S.S.

Chheena .vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR

(Cri) 3298 (S.C.).

12. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar cited supra, the

appellant before the Apex Court was the brother of Neelam wife of

deceased Chander Bhushan @ Babloo. It was the prosecution case

that after marriage of Neelam with the deceased, there was

continuous ill-treatment by the deceased and his family members

to Neelam. As such she had gone to her parents house and started

living with her brother, the appellant before the Apex Court. About

7 APL332.16.odt

two months prior to the incident, the appellant advised the

deceased to take his sister back to her matrimonial house and treat

her properly. It was the prosecution case that on 25 th July, 1998,

the appellant visited the place of the parents of the deceased and

pleaded with them that his sister should be rehabilitated in the

matrimonial home and should not be physically ill-treated or

harassed. It was also the prosecution case that on that day the

appellant also said to have threatened the parents of the deceased

that if they do not mend their behaviour towards his sister, he

would be compelled to resort to filing a complaint under Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On this, the parents of the

deceased expressed helplessness. It was the further prosecution

case that the parents of the deceased informed the deceased about

the same. He went to the house of parents of the appellant, where

quarrel took place between them. Therefore, the deceased

returned alone and told his brothers and other acquaintances that

the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words.

On the next date i.e. on 27 th July, 1998, the deceased was found

hanging with a rope by neck on the raft of his house and he was

found dead. A suicide note was left by the deceased. On the basis

of the said suicide note, the charge-sheet was filed against said

Sanju alias Sanjay Sengar . A petition challenging filing of charge-

sheet was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was rejected. Hence, said

Sanju alias Sanjay Sengar approached the Hon'ble Apex Court.

8 APL332.16.odt

13. The Apex Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar's case

considered the earlier judgments in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said

judgment. It would be appropriate to refer to the same -

"9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have

remarked the deceased 'to go and die' . This Court

was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not

even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995

Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an

offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband

Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."

11. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the

9 APL332.16.odt

allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court

further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the

deceased.

12. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh

(2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in

which she had stated that previously there had been

quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her

husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said :

"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it

transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim

belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

10 APL332.16.odt

14. After considering the earlier judgments, Their Lordships

observed thus at paragraph 13 -

"13. .......... It is in a fit of anger and emotional.

Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July,

1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said

that the abusive language, which had been used by the

appellant on 25th July, 1998 drived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered

by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of

the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is

alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.

15. Their Lordships of the Apex Court further have

reproduced the suicide note in the said case in paragraph 14 of the

judgment, wherein Sanjay Sengar was directly implicated to be the

person responsible for suicide of the deceased. After reproducing

the said suicide note, Their Lordships observed thus at

paragraph 15 -

"15. ........ The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July, 1998 and if

11 APL332.16.odt

the deceased came back to the house again on 26th

July, 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that

had taken pace on 25th July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment'

are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. ......."

After these observations, Their Lordships allowed the appeal and

quashed and set aside the charge-sheet.

16. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh (cited supra), the

petitioner was working as a DET in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The

deceased i.e. Deepakbhai Krishnalal Joshi has committed suicide.

On the basis of complaint filed by his wife, an FIR came to be

registered. The petitioner had applied for discharge. The trial Court

rejected it. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of the trial

Judge. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached the

Apex Court. The prosecution heavily relied on the suicide note of

the deceased wherein it was stated that the petitioner was

responsible for his death. The Apex Court negating the contention

on behalf of prosecution observed thus:-

"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be

12 APL332.16.odt

suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such

matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or

secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about

the suicide.

11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that

we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document

in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the

deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so- called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused even intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did

anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the

accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it

does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.

12. In order to bring out an offence under Section

306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there

13 APL332.16.odt

being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC

either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.

13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at

all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the

prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more

material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant-accused. Unless,

therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-

accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not

exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great

prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Duta v. State of W.B., this Court had quashed the proceedings

initiated against the accused.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything

14 APL332.16.odt

intentional on the part of the accused that the

deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be

difficult for every superior officer even to work." (emphasis supplied)

17. In case of S.S.Cheena (cited supra) , there was a dispute

between one Saurav Mahajan, who was a final year student of Law

Department and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same

class with regard to the theft of a mobile phone. This came to the

notice of M.D.Singh, the then Head of the Law Department who

asked both the students to submit their versions of the incident in

writing. The deceased and Harminder gave their versions and,

thereafter, M.D.Singh forwarded their versions to the University

authorities for taking necessary action. An inquiry was conducted

on 13th October 2003 by the Security Officer of the University Shri

S.S.Chheena. During the course of inquiry, on 17th October 2003,

Saurav Mahajan committed suicide by jumping in front of the train.

A suicide note was seized from the the pocket of the deceased. On

the complaint of father of the deceased, an offence under section

306 of I.P.C. was registered against Harminder Singh. During the

course of trial, S.S.Cheena was also impleaded as accused. Being

aggrieved by the framing of charge, S.S.Cheena approached the

High Court. The High Court refused to interfere. Being aggrieved

thereby, said S.S.Cheena approached the Supreme Court. The Apex

Court observed thus:

15 APL332.16.odt

"27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The

Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or

encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay

down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such

cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the

part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing

suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict

a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and

that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to- day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs

16 APL332.16.odt

from the other. Different people behave differently

in the same situation.

30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes

obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is

palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be

criminal

travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a trial without any credible material

whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside." (emphasis supplied)

18. Recently, in the case of State of Kerala and others

.vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair and others , reported in AIR 2015

Supreme Court 3351, Their Lordships had an occasion to consider

a similar case. In the said case, the Chief Investigating Officer had

committed suicide pending investigation in a murder case. In the

suicide note, it was alleged that two of his subordinates were

responsible for his this situation. There were some allegations

against one Advocate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The First

Information Report came to be lodged against the subordinate

officers. They filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The Kerala High Court quashed the First

17 APL332.16.odt

Information Report. Being aggrieved thereby, the State went in

appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. While dismissing the appeal,

the Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus :

"13. As we find from the narration of facts and

the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain

reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there

has been any abetment by the respondents. note, except saying that the the respondents The

compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That

apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles

reasons, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him

the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the

Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate."

19. In the light of this legal position, let us examine the

suicide note :

18 APL332.16.odt

"Shri D.R.Shirsao, the District Judge, Yavatmal, Shri

S.M. Agarkar, Member, Legal Services Authority, Shri D.N. Khadse, Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal,

Shri R.P. Deshpande, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal and H.L. Manwar, 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal are responsible for my death as

they subjected me to harassment.".

Sd/- .....

A.D. Jawalkar Civil Judge

Perusal of the said suicide note would not reveal as to on what date

the deceased has written the suicide note. However, even taking

the allegations to be true at its face value, the question would be

as to whether is it sufficient to book the persons like applicants for

the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Perusal of the various statements recorded of the employees

working under the deceased would show that the deceased had

never made any complaint with regard to any of the applicants.

No doubt that there is a statement of one Judicial Officer, who had

friendly relations with the deceased, that the deceased was

disturbed on account of he being transferred to Darwha and not

being permitted to do up and down from Darwha and on account of

certain event that happened in the workshop. The question would

be as to whether the fact of a person being disturbed on account of

official act done by a superior would be sufficient to book such a

superior officer for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code or not. We find that the issue is squarely

19 APL332.16.odt

answered by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh's case cited

supra.

20. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court

that for permitting a trial to proceed against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is

necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that

the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the

deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such

material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As

has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that abetment

involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally

aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the

part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abeting the deceased

to commit suicide, the said persons cannot be compelled to face

the trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to commit an offence or

active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide

seeing no option or the act intending to push the deceased into

such a position, the trial against the accused under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code, in our considered view, would be an abuse

of process of law.

21. No doubt that the judiciary has lost one of its officers in

an unfortunate incident. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

20 APL332.16.odt

Court, the response of a person to a situation may differ from a

person to person. A person, who is sensitive, may be hurt if the

things do not happen as per his wish and may unfortunately

commit an act, which leads to his death. No doubt, our all

sympathies are with the family of the Judicial Officer, who lost his

life in prime age. However, can that be said to be sufficient to

prosecute the other Judicial Officers, for no fault of theirs. As

already discussed hereinabove, except applicant no.1, there is not

even whisper in the affidavit of the non-applicant no.2 insofar as

the other applicants are concerned. Even the allegations against

the applicant no.1 are with regard to discharge of his official duties.

As pointed out hereinabove, it cannot also be a case of harassment

inasmuch as the deceased was the junior most Judicial Officer in

the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division and transferring him out of

the District headquarters to another place in the same district,

cannot be said to be an act by the applicant no.1 causing

harassment to the deceased. If the deceased had any grievance

against his superiors, it was always open for him to approach the

learned Guardian Judge of the District or Registry of this Court.

22. In any case, the transfer of the deceased from Yavatmal

to Darwha had taken place on 01.10.2015. The workshop, in which

it is alleged that the applicant no.1 had ill-treated the deceased,

had taken place on 14.02.2016 and the unfortunate incident of

suicide has taken place on 06.03.2016. Thus, it can be clearly

21 APL332.16.odt

seen that even the causes of action, which are attributed as an

abetment to commit suicide are also far remote from the date of

death of the deceased. As already discussed hereinabove, in the

case of Sanju @ Sanjay Sengar , the allegation that you go and die

and the deceased committing suicide after 48 hours, was found to

have no nexus with the suicide.

23. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view

that continuation of criminal proceedings against the present

applicants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such

we are inclined to allow the application.

Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer

clause (1).

          (V. M. Deshpande, J. )                 (B. R. Gavai, J.)





                                       ...
    Diwale.