Vilas S/O. Sheshrao Bhagat vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6826 Bom

                                                               Cri.Appln.2111/2017
                                       1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2111 OF 2017

Vilas s/o Sheshrao Bhagat,
Age 44 years, Occu. Agri.
and service, R/o Belapur Kd,
Taluka Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar                                     .. Applicant

        Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra,
        through Police Station,
        Shrirampur City,
        District Ahmednagar

2.      Harshal s/o Sunil Raut,
        Age 30 years, Occu. Business,
        R/o Pimpalgaon Fungi,
        Taluka Rahuri,
        District Ahmednagar                             .. Respondents

Mr Mr Kunal Kale, Advocate for applicant
Mr V.M. Kagne, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Mr B.G. Sagade Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2

                                   CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                           A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

                                   DATE OF RESERVING
                                   THE JUDGMENT : 4.9.2017

                                   DATE OF PRONOUNCING
                                   THE JUDGMENT : 6.9.2017


JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Dhavale, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,

matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing

of F.I.R. registered against the applicant at C.R.No.I-31/2017 at

Shrirampur Police Station on 25.1.2017 under Section 306 of Indian

Penal Code.

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

3. As per the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2 Harshal dated

25.1.2017, his uncle Suhas Raut aged 51 years was running a

business of sale of Finolex drip irrigation and fitting at Belapur (Kh.) in

the name and styled as "Pravara Agro Services". On 25.1.2017 at

7.30 p.m., when respondent no.2 Harshal was at Deolab Pravara,

Taluka Rahuri, his mother informed him that his uncle Suhas was not

attending to the phone call and he should go to Belapur to meet him

and verify his well being. Respondent no.2 along with his wife went to

Belapur and found that his uncle Suhas had committed suicide by

hanging himself by nylon rope to the roof angles of the shed. He was

taken down and was found dead. Respondent no.2 Harshal found one

suicide chit in his pocket, which disclosed that he was under pressure

of payment of subsidy amount to the applicant Vilas Bhagat. He was

under tremendous pressure for six months, as he had sustained heavy

losses in the business and was depressed. Then, the information was

supplied to the police. The informant learnt that the applicant was

regularly meeting his uncle in his shop in connection with recovery of

subsidy of drip irrigation set purchased by him and was intimidating

him that if the subsidy amount would not be paid by him, he

(applicant) would take away his all articles from the shop and

therefore, his uncle Suhas has committed suicide. Accordingly, F.I.R.

was lodged on the same day at 8.00 p.m. and the crime was

registered on 25.1.2017. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail

and was released on bail by brother Judge (Justice N.W. Sambre) of

this Court on 20.2.2017. The applicant claimed that he is well

educated and from a respectable family and was working as Principal

in Shri Anand College of Pharmacy, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. He

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

has 3 hectare 24 R irrigated agricultural land at Ambi, Taluka Rahuri.

He admitted that he had purchased drip irrigation set from the

deceased, worth Rs.94,999/- on 1.3.2014 under the Central

government scheme. He had not abetted the commission of suicide

by deceased Suhas. Deceased Suhas was under depression due to

losses sustained in the agriculture. Therefore, he has committed

suicide. Hence, the applicant claims that the F.I.R. lodged against him

should be quashed.

4. Mr V.M. Kagne, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr Sagade,

learned Counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the quashing of F.I.R. It

is claimed that the deceased has left behind a suicide note and name

of the applicant is disclosed in the same. The applicant was harassing

him for payment of subsidy and it created mental pressure which

resulted into the commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore,

the matter needs investigation and trial.

5. We have gone through the papers of investigation produced by

the learned A.P.P. There are statements of some persons showing

that the applicant was abusing the deceased in filthy language for

recovery of the subsidy amount and had intimidated him.

Investigation seems to be almost complete except receipt of

handwriting expert report.

6. While considering the plea for quashing of the F.I.R. under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is well settled that the Court has to assume

the facts placed before it as true and correct and should not consider

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

whether the facts were probable or not unless those are inherently

improbable.

7. We, therefore, assume that the suicide note produced before us

was left behind by the deceased.

8. We find that there is no dispute that deceased Suhas committed

suicide. There is also no dispute that the applicant had purchased

from him drip irrigation set. Its bill dated 1.3.2014 of Rs.94,999/- has

been produced by the applicant himself. It is also not disputed that as

per the scheme of Central government, the applicant was entitled for

subsidy payable for fitting drip irrigation system and such subsidy is

paid through the dealer. As such, the deceased was liable to pay the

subsidy amount to the applicant, when he would get the same from

the government.

9. There is no direct evidence or circumstance to show that

applicant desired that the deceased should commit suicide. There is

no direct material showing intention or knowledge that the deceased

would commit suicide because the applicant would demand subsidy

amount from him.

10. In such situation, when there is no intention, the deemed

knowledge can be inferred on the part of the applicant only if he

creates situation of such a thing that the deceased has no option but

to commit suicide. In this regard, we rely on Chitreshkumar Vs.

State of NCT Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 1446, in which while dealing with

the term 'instigation', the Supreme Court held as follows :

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

" ...instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction....to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts."

In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC

3837 it is held that

"...what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide."

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

11. In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicant was

entitled for subsidy amount from the deceased. It is not an act of

abetment that the applicant purchased drip irrigation system from the

deceased. Similarly, if the applicant was demanding the subsidy

amount payable to him by the deceased, the said act cannot be also

called as an act of abetment. The applicant was not demanding any

illegal amount. There was no demand for interest at exorbitant rate

or any like demand. The demand of the applicant with the deceased

was legitimate demand. The suicide note produced disclosed that the

deceased had sustained heavy agricultural losses and was in

tremendous pressure and depression. If in such situation the

applicant demanded his over due subsidy amount from the deceased,

it can be the temporary cause for the deceased to go into acute

depression so as to commit suicide. It seems that there are

allegations that the applicant abused and intimidated the deceased so

as to get back his subsidy amount. Still it must be remembered that it

was a legitimate demand and the applicant had not received the said

amount for a period of three years. Making a demand for legitimate

amount probably a bit aggressively so that the deceased would make

the payment, do not fall in the category of persistent harassment by

illegal demands of money. We, therefore, find that even if the

allegations against the applicant are taken at face value as it is

without adding or subtracting anything from the same, still it is not

sufficient to infer that the deceased was abetted by the applicant to

commit suicide. Mere appearance of name of the applicant in the

suicide note by itself is not a circumstance to hold that the applicant

Cri.Appln.2111/2017

was responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased. In this

regard, we rely upon Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasrao and ors. Vs.

State of Maharashtra, 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 323.

12. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above referred

judgments and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we

find that there is no material to even remotely infer that the petitioner

has deemed to have abetted by instigation, intentional aiding or by

conspiracy to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Continuation of

the proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of

Court. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the

order :

ORDER

(I) The F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.I-31/2017, registered against the

applicant at Shrirampur Police Station on 25.1.2017 under Section 306

of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.

(II) Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no orders

as to costs.

       ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                   ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)




vvr