Prasad Deepak Nand vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9149 Bom

                                        (1)                                  cri.appln 1932.17

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1932 OF 2017


      Prasad Deepak Nand,
      Age : 30 years, Occ. Service,
      R/o C-701, KK Anjalika Society
      Rahatani, Pune Tal. & Dist. Pune.                          ...      Applicant

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Police Inspector,
      Taluka Police Station, Jalgaon,
      Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.

2.    Mahendra Ramchad Bhoi
      Age : 59 years, Occ. Pensioner
      & Agriculture, R/o Gat No. 89
      1 Plot No.4, Behin Gujral
      Petrol Pump, Gurudatta Housing
      Society, Dadawadi, Jalgaon
      Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.                                       ...      Respondents

                                     -----
Mr. M.V. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Respondent No.2 served but absent.
                                     -----

                                    CORAM :         S.S. SHINDE &
                                                    MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 13.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 29.11.2017

...

(2) cri.appln 1932.17

JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

the parties matter is heard finally.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking

this Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash and set aside the

F.I.R. registered in Crime no. 4 of 2017 at Taluka Police Station, Jalgaon

on 15.01.2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code and the consequential charge-sheet filed in pursuance

thereof.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate for both the applicant

and the learned A.P.P. We have also perused the entire record and

proceedings and annexures to the charge-sheet.

4. In sum and substance the allegations in the F.I.R. are to the

effect that the deceased Snehal was having an affair with the applicant.

For years together the affair continued but could not result in marriage.

In the year 2016, the applicant solemnised marriage with another girl

Snehal started harbouring a feeling that he had since inception cheated

on her. He never really intended to marry her and finally ditched her. By

his such conduct he instigated her to commit suicide and she finally

(3) cri.appln 1932.17

ended her life by hanging herself to the ceiling fan at her residence at

Jalgaon on 02.01.2017.

5. According to the prosecution, she left behind a suicide note

which reads as under:

"eh Suicide djrs;

Prasad Nand is responsible for this He cheat Me.

ek>s Call details dk<k- rks Punyala Job djrks- vdksY;kpk vkgs- eh esyh rj ek>s email e/;s loZ dkgh vkgs- esY;kf'kok; email check d# u;s-

Lusgy tkojs Sd/-"

Roughly translated it means:

I am committing suicide Prasad Nand is responsible for this. He

cheated me. Take out my call details. He is doing a job at Pune. He is

resident of Akola. If I die everything is available in my e-mail. E-mail

should not be checked unless I die.

6. Her family also found another writing running into 104 pages

in her bedroom, wherein, she has spoken about how her relationship with

the applicant has developed for years and also about her mental

condition. The respondent no.2 who is the father of the deceased Snehal

(4) cri.appln 1932.17

then lodged the impugned F.I.R. The investigation was carried out and

the applicant was implicated. Hence this application for quashing the

F.I.R. as it was originally filed. However, during the pendency of the

present proceeding charge-sheet has also been filed in the Court of

J.M.F.C. Hence the applicant was allowed to carry out amendment and

thereby he has included a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well.

7. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant,

accepting the allegations in the F.I.R. and the documents annexed to the

charge-sheet and particularly the e-mails, mental condition of deceased

Snehal can be gathered and at places she has specifically admitted that

she was at fault which has resulted in to the break-up. According to the

learned Advocate, merely because the long standing relationship fell

apart, the applicant alone cannot be blamed. Deceased Snehal was also

responsible for the break-up. According to the learned Advocate,

assuming that it was merely because of the applicant that the

relationship broke up that would not be sufficient to attribute him with

necessary mens rea for leading her to commit suicide. In fact, the

applicant himself had telephoned her brother Shyamal from Pune and

informed him that she was about to commit suicide. The learned

Advocate pointed out that it is evident from the averments in the mail

(5) cri.appln 1932.17

that there was opposition to the marriage between them from the

parents of Snehal and therefore she was mentally disturbed which has

led her to commit suicide. The learned Advocate also pointed out that

the applicant was married to one Pallavi on 03.02.2016 and the fact was

known to Snehal and her family members and therefore there was no

proximity in his marrying and commission of suicide. Thus, according to

the learned Advocate even by accepting the allegations in the F.I.R. at

their face value they fall insufficient to constitute abetment within the

meaning under Section 107 of the I.P.C. The learned Advocate placed

reliance on the decisions in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s.

State of A.P.; 2010 SCC 327 and in the case of Gurucharan Singh

V/s. State of Punjab; 2017(1) SCC 433. Lastly, the learned Advocate

submitted that, it would be sheer abuse of process of law if the applicant

is made to face the trial on the basis of mere suspicion.

8. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application.

According to him there are sufficient allegations leveled against the

applicant in the e-mails sent by deceased Snehal which demonstrate that

the applicant had time and again retracted from the relationship and kept

her hanging on the prospects of the marriage. Such persistent conduct

on his part in repeatedly promising the marriage and then retracting on

(6) cri.appln 1932.17

some pretext or the other would definitely constitute instigation within

the meaning of Section 107 of the I.P.C. The allegations in the F.I.R.

clearly make out all the necessary ingredients for constituting abetment.

The subsequent event of completion of investigation and finding of

enough substance/material implicating the applicant further corroborates

the allegations in the F.I.R. Therefore, it would be just and proper to

allow the criminal proceeding to go on instead of thwarting it at the

threshold.

9. We have carefully gone through the charge-sheet and the

annexures thereto. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and

deceased Snehal were involved in an affair and the relationship continued

for seven to eight years. It is also apparently a fact that she committed

suicide on 02.01.2017 and it does not seem to be a sheer coincidence

that she has chosen the date which happens to be the first marriage

anniversary of the applicant. It is indeed an unfortunate state of affairs

that such a long standing relationship has come to an end in this manner.

However, what is necessary and important for us to ascertain is as to

whether prima facie it can be said that the alleged conduct of the

applicant which is attributed to him by deceased Snehal in her various e-

mails and the suicide note can be said to have a nexus with the act of

(7) cri.appln 1932.17

suicide. Unless there is such nexus, the former cannot be said to be an

abetment of which the consequence was suicide. A mere cause and

effect relationship would not be sufficient. For constituting abetment

within the meaning of Section 107 of I.P.C, such conduct of the applicant

must have proximate relation with the act of commission of suicide.

10. It is trite and the law is well settled by catena of cases S. S.

Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another; 2010 ALL MR

(Cri.) 3298 (S.C.), Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P.; 2010

ALL MR (Cri) 615 (S.C.), Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh; 2002 CRI.L.J. 2796, and few Division Bench

decisions of this Court in the case of Binod and Ors. Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Anr; 2013(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 418, Ms. Lovina

Pankaj Bhatia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.; 2011

(113) BLR 3192, Dr. Shivanand Shivraj Biradar Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Anr; 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1401.

11. Suffice for the purpose to note that the basic principle as is

discussed above is to the effect that in order to constitute an abetment of

suicide there has to be either instigation or conspiracy or intentional aid

which results in suicide. Obviously, it would all depend upon the facts

and circumstances peculiar to each case and no straitjacket formula can

(8) cri.appln 1932.17

be devised. True it is that in the e-mails sent by Snehal at various places

she has blamed herself for the break-up. However, simultaneously it can

also be noticed that sometimes even she has passed on the blame to the

applicant. The facts narrated in these e-mails may well have to be

established by other corroborative evidence. In our view, when

apparently there was a long and affectionate relationship between the

applicant and deceased Snehal, all these mails will have to be scanned

threadbare. Even there is a writing running into 104 pages seized during

the investigation contents of which would reflect her mental condition as

well. An opportunity will have to be extended to the Investigating Officer

and the prosecution to substantiate the allegations on the basis of the

material collected during investigation. In the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case, in our view no such minute scrutiny is

possible at this juncture and doing it would be hazardous. Since already

the prosecution has been launched by filing the charge-sheet, it would be

appropriate if the trial is allowed to go ahead.

12. In our considered view, this is not a case and the stage,

wherein, it can be said that it would be a sheer abuse of process of law, if

the applicant is made to face the trial. Falling apart of such persisting and

long standing affair in a given case might constitute an act amounting to

(9) cri.appln 1932.17

instigation. It all will depend upon the evidence that would come before

the learned Judge.

13. Under the circumstances, in our view the applicant is not

entitled to seek quashment of the prosecution at this juncture. The

application is liable to be rejected.

14. It is made clear that the observations made herein are

confined to the decision of this application alone and we have not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case before the learned trial

Judge.

15. The application is rejected. The rule is discharged.

      [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                          [S.S. SHINDE, J.]



mub