Kavish S/O. Ramakant Sapre vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9512 Bom

                                 1                         apl519.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.519 OF 2017



  Kavish s/o. Ramakant Sapre,
  Aged about 20 years, Occ.
  Education, r/o. Vitthal Nagar,
  Digras, Tq.Digras, Distt.
  Yavatmal.                      ..........      APPLICANT



          // VERSUS //



  1.The State of Maharashtra,
     Through Police Station 
     Officer, Digras, Tq.Digras,
     Distt. Yavatmal.

  2.Ramesh Narayan Udakhe,
     Aged about 48 years, Occ.
     Service, r/o. Padgilwar 
     Layout, Digras, Tq.
     Digras, Distt.Yavatmal.          ..........       RESPONDENTS



::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:33 :::
                                    2                                     apl519.17.odt

  ____________________________________________________________  
               Mr.Jafar A. Malnas, Advocate with Mr.Taj M. Malnas, 
               Advocate for the Applicant.
               Mr.T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
  ____________________________________________________________


                                                **********
  Date of reserving the Judgment                              :   6.12.2017.
  Date of pronouncement of Judgment                           :  12.12.2017.
                                                **********


                                     CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                          AND
                                                          M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.


  JUDGMENT  (Per M.G.Giratkar, J)   :

1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. The applicant has challenged First Information Report

No.297 of 2017, dt.22.6.2017 registered by respondent no.1 at Police

Station, Digras for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology

Act, 2000.

3 apl519.17.odt

3. It is submitted by the applicant that he is a student of

Engineering and studying in B.E. (Second year) at Babasaheb Naik

Engineering College at Pusad. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the

daughter of complainant namely Kajal, who was studying with the

applicant in Babasaheb Naik Engineering College, committed suicide

on 21st June, 2017 by hanging herself. It is alleged in the report that

deceased Kajal was in love with one Gaurav Laxman Mange. There

was break up between them. Thereafter, she was in love with the

applicant. When the applicant came to know about her previous love

affair, he started harassing her by sending messages on her mobile

phone making allegations that she is characterless etc. It is alleged in

the F.I.R. that, because of mental harassment of the applicant, she

has committed suicide.

4. It is submitted that the applicant has neither harassed

her nor sent any message. He is falsely implicated in the crime.

Therefore, it is prayed to quash and set aside the crime registered

against him.

5. Heard Mr.Malnas, learned Counsel for the applicant. He

has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not

4 apl519.17.odt

sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. There should be abetment as defined under

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no any instigation

on the part of applicant to commit suicide by the deceased. In

support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has pointed out the

decisions in the cases of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh .vs. State of M.P.

reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 and Madan Mohan Singh .vs. State

of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628.

8. Heard Mr.T.A.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for Respondent

No.1/State. He has supported the action of respondent.

9. Perused the F.I.R. From the bare reading of report

lodged by respondent no.2, it is clear that no any suicide note was

found with the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide in her

own house at the residence of her father i.e. respondent no.2. After

her death, respondent no.2 lodged report alleging that he came to

know about the love affair of applicant with his daughter. He came

to know that the applicant used to send vulgar messages and harass

her. It is alleged in the report that applicant came to know about the

previous love affair of Kajal with one Gaurav Mange. There was

5 apl519.17.odt

break up. Thereafter, she started love affairs with the applicant.

When applicant came to know about her previous love affair, he

started to harass her. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that he sent message

to the deceased stating "Chinal, bajaratil baya barya, tu characterless

aahe, laj watte ka, pakadla watte dusara boy friend".

10. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. are sufficient

to constitutean offence or whether it amounts to abetment as defined

under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is to be decided. In the

case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (supra),

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that utterance of words "to go and

die" does not amount to instigation as defined under Section 107 of

the Indian Penal Code. It is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that

"quarrel between accused and deceased. Accused telling deceased 'to

go and die' - That itself would not constitute ingredient of

'instigation' - Presence of means rea is necessary concomitant of

instigation - Fact that deceased committed suicide after two days of

quarrel during which said words were uttered by accused - Would

show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel - Suicide note left

by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression -

Statement by his wife that he was frustrated man and was in habit of

6 apl519.17.odt

drinking - Held, charge-sheet framed under Section 306 against

accused was liable to be quashed and set aside. "

11. In the present case, no specific date is given in the F.I.R.

to show that on a particular date applicant sent message and due to

that reaction, deceased committed suicide. Therefore, it is clear that

the message sent by the applicant was not sufficient to abet the

deceased to commit suicide.

12. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh .vs. State of Gujarat

and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

"intention of accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the suicide must

be proved. Suicide note of deceased implicating appellant/accused

was more in the nature of departmental complaint, suggesting some

mental imbalance on the part of deceased which he himself

described as depression. Even in so-called suicide note, it could not

be said that accused ever intended that the driver under him should

commit suicide or should end his life, and accused did not do

anything in that behalf. Merely because a person had a grudge

against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that

grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not

7 apl519.17.odt

be a proper allegation for basing a charge under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code. Thus, ingredients for sustaining conviction under

Sections 306 and 107 are not proved against the petitioner."

Therefore, the F.I.R. was quashed by the Supreme Court.

13. In the present case, no any suicide note was left by the

deceased. The allegations made in the report by respondent no.2 are

not sufficient to constitute abetment as defined under Section 107 of

the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.2 though served, he

remained absent.

14. From the plain reading of report lodged by respondent

no.2, it is clear that prima facie offence punishable under Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicant.

From the face value of F.I.R. Itself, it could be seen that the applicant

is falsely implicated. Hence, in view of Judgment of Supreme Court

in the case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , State of Haryana

.vs. Bhajan Lal, the F.I.R. lodged against the applicant is liable to be

quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.

8 apl519.17.odt

// ORDER //

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the application.

First Information Report No.297/2017, dt.22.6.2017 against the applicant registered in Police Station, Digras is hereby quashed and set aside.

No order as to costs.

                             JUDGE                            JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                9               apl519.17.odt