Jaypal Maruti Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4877 Bom

                                                                  Cri.W.P.No. 651/17
                                             1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 651 OF 2007.

          Jaypal S/o Maruti Chavan,
          Aged: 51 Years, Occu: Service,
          Working as a Medical Suptd.
          Sud-District hospital, Mukhed,
          R/o Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed,
          Dist. Nanded.                                     ....Petitioner.

                  Versus

1.        The State of Maharashtra
          Through its Secretary,
          Department of Home,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.        Police Inspector,
          Mukhed Police Station,
          Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.

3.        Shri. Hanmantrao Govindrao Goud,
          A/P. Pala. Tq. Mukhed.
          Dist. Nanded.                                     ....Respondents.

Mr. P. D. Bachate h/f Mr. A. B. Girase, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.


                                   CORAM     :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                                 SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                   DATED :       JULY 21, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

.                 The proceeding is filed for relief of quashment of F.I.R.

No. 105/2007 registered in Mukhed Police Station for the offence

punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

Both the sides are heard.

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

2) The deceased Shivam was nephew of respondent No. 3.

The deceased was aged about 23 years. He was worker of political

party, Bhartiya Janta Party and he was involved in students agitation

and also the agitations of people for some social cause. He was

agitating against the public servants and the corruption in the offices

of Government.

3) He had applied for collecting information against Medical

Superintendent Dr. Jaipal Chavan, present petitioner and the

information was about his M.R. bills, T.A. bills etc. for the period

from 2001 to 2004 of his previous station Mukhed under Right to

Information Act. The application was given on 24.8.2007 and since

then present petitioner Chavan was harassing him and had started

giving threats to him. Some information was ultimately supplied to

the deceased under aforesaid Act, but it was not complete and

sufficient information and so, the deceased wanted to file appeal for

getting complete information.

4) On 21.9.2007, present petitioner called the deceased

when he learnt that the deceased was still after him and he wanted

to collect the remaining information. The deceased had already

given complaint to Deputy Director of Health Latur against the

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

petitioner for requesting to make inquiry in to the corrupt activities.

In the past, he had attempted to give copy of the said

representation to the petitioner also. When on 21.9.2007, the

deceased went to the private dispensary of the petitioner, copy of

the aforesaid representation prepared was handed over by the

deceased to the petitioner. After reading the contents of the

representation, the petitioner became angry and he gave threat to

destroy the deceased. On 21.9.2007 itself F.I.R. was given by the

petitioner against the deceased that the deceased was blackmailing

him and he had demanded Rs.10,000/- from him. On the same day,

the deceased came to be arrested and he was produced before the

Magistrate on 22.9.2007. After the arrest of the deceased, a press

conference was arranged in which information was supplied against

the deceased and the deceased was humiliated. Magistrate granted

bail to deceased on 22.9.2007.

5) The deceased was feeling insulted and humiliated due to

his arrest and his detention in police custody and also due to the

press conference which was arranged at the instance of the present

petitioner. He started agitating in respect of this and on 26.9.2007

he went to Tahsildar with representation. Before Tahsildar's Office he

consumed poison. His representation was then taken over. Attempt

was made to save his life. But he died due to poisoning. In the

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

representation, he blamed the present petitioner for his arrest and

detention and also false implication in the case and he also blamed

the police for joining hands with the petitioner. He specifically

contended that he was consuming poison due to his insult and

defamation. On the basis of this representation, the crime came to

be registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under

section 306 of IPC.

6) It appears that after making investigation, chargesheet

is also filed. During investigation, police recorded statements of

friends and relatives of the deceased and also of other persons. They

are to the effect that the deceased was feeling insulted and he was

depressed due to the conduct which was given to him at the instance

of present petitioner. The chargesheet was filed in the Court on

22.2.2008. It appears that on 20.2.2008 this Court granted interim

relief and directed not to take coercive action against the petitioner.

As the case is filed, relief ought to have been claimed in respect of

the case itself, but that is not done and the relief of quashment of

the F.I.R. is claimed.

7) The papers of investigation show that there are

statements of as many as 30 witnesses and there is the

representation of the deceased which can be treated as dying

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

declaration now. The statements show that only due to the

harassment which the deceased had faced and due to the incident of

his arrest in aforesaid case, the deceased committed suicide. The

deceased has specifically blamed the petitioner. It is not disputed

that the death took place due to poisoning.

8) The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on

some observations made by the Apex Court like AIR 2002

SUPREME COURT 1998 [Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh], 2008 AIR SCW 3202 [Sohan Raj

Sharma Vs. State of Haryana] and (2010) 8 Supreme Court

Cases 628 [Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr.].

On the other hand the learned APP placed reliance on some

observations made by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.

1589/2012 [Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and

Anr.] decided on 4.10.2012.

9) Facts and circumstances of each and every case are

always different. Many facts of the present matter are admitted and

they are quoted above. The contention of the petitioner that he had

right to give report to police and the circumstance of giving of the

report, cannot be called as abetment, cannot be accepted at this

stage. It is a defence and there is counter contention and there are

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

many statements in that regard. It will be matter of evidence. The

important fact which can be kept in mind is that only on the basis of

report of the present petitioner that the deceased was demanding

money, he was arrested and kept in police custody for one day.

Further, press conference was arranged and care was taken to see

that he is defamed in the society. There are statements of police

officers with the chargesheet showing that some officers of other

department had also grievance that the deceased was harassing

them by making applications and complaints. It can be said that the

step like arrest of the deceased was taken intentionally. If there was

really demand of money to the petitioner by the deceased, in

ordinary course, police would have arranged trap and person making

demand of money by blackmailing could have been caught red

handed. Such an attempt was not made and this circumstance

cannot be ignored. These facts of the present matter are peculiar in

nature. The deceased had taken the decision to finish himself, for

that he had prepared hand written representation and he had gone

before Tahsildar to give it. In view of these circumstances, this Court

holds that the matter needs to be left to the Court to appreciate the

material which is collected by the police. At this stage, it cannot be

said that the act of the petitioner does not amount to abetment as

defined in section 107 of the IPC. The Apex Court has laid down

that there cannot be straight jacket formula on such point and in

Cri.W.P.No. 651/17

each and every case, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the

act of the accused is abetment. When there is voluminous material

of aforesaid nature and when chargesheet is filed, it is not possible

to quash the F.I.R.

10) In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is

discharged. The learned counsel for petitioner wants time to

challenge the order of this Court. Time of four weeks is given to him.

       [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]            [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]



ssc/