Balu Alias Abhijeet Bapurao Ubale vs The State Of Mah And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 4905 Bom

                                                                      Cri.W.P.No. 943/09
                                              1


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

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 943 OF 2009.

          Balu @ Abhijeet S/o Bapurao Ubale,
          Age: 24 Years, Occu: Agri,
          R/O: Kumbhar Galli, Partur,
          Tq. Partur, Dist: Jalna                              ....Petitioner.

                  Versus


1.        The State of Maharashtra

2.        Rushindra S/o Baburao Kale,
          Age: 39 Years, Occu: Agri,
          R/o : Kharpudi, Tq. & Dist: Jalna.                    ....Respondents.

Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent No. 1/State.


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

                                   DATED :         JULY 21, 2017.

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

.                 The proceeding is filed for relief of quashment of

proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 121/2009 and the F.I.R. No.

42/2009 in which the case is filed by Partur Police, District Jalna.

Both the sides are heard.

2) The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of report given by

father of deceased Durga. She was given in marriage to

Dnyaneshwar Dhage resident of Partur and she was aged about 26

Cri.W.P.No. 943/09

years. The petitioner, accused is also from Partur and his house is

situated in the vicinity of house of husband of Durga.

3) In respect of incident dated 23.11.2008, Durga had

given report against the present petitioner and the crime was

registered for offence punishable under sections 354, 506 of Indian

Penal Code ('IPC' for short) against the petitioner in Partur Police

Station. He had outraged the modesty of the deceased by holding

her and by asking her to come with him. Even after registration of

the crime and filing of the case by police, the conduct of the

petitioner did not improve.

4) The petitioner kept on harassing the deceased. Even the

petitioner had given taunts to the deceased and the deceased had

disclosed this incident to her husband. About two months prior to

the incident, the accused was on roof top of the adjacent house so

that he was able to see the deceased. These incidents were

disclosed by the deceased to her father also.

5) On 25.5.2009 the deceased committed suicide by setting

herself on fire. On that day at about 8 to 8.30 a.m. the accused,

petitioner had again tried to harass the deceased by making noise.

As he used to do such acts every day, the deceased was feeling

Cri.W.P.No. 943/09

harassed and so, she took the extreme step of suicide. The husband

gave report against the petitioner on the same day and the crime

came to be registered. There are statements of many witnesses who

include the relatives of husband showing that they all knew that the

petitioner was after the deceased and he was harassing her.

6) The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the

case filed for offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, the

petitioner is acquitted and so, it cannot be believed that the

petitioner was harassing the deceased and the petitioner had

abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He placed reliance on the

cases reported as 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]. The facts

and circumstances of criminal cases are always different. There

cannot be straight jacket formula to ascertain as to whether there

was abetment or there was no abetment. The inference can be

drawn on the basis of facts and circumstances of a particular case.

In the present matter, there are serious allegations against the

petitioner. He was harassing the deceased who was a married

women and even after giving of the report for offence punishable

under section 354 of IPC, harassment was continued. Indian lady

who is insulted this way can take such extreme step as Indian lady

Cri.W.P.No. 943/09

cannot tolerate the defamation which follows such conduct of a

person. Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that the matter

needs to be left to the Trial Court for appreciation of the material

and it is not possible to quash the proceeding itself. The

circumstance that the accused is acquitted in the previous case

cannot make him entitle to get relief in the present proceeding. In

the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

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



ssc/