Bombay High Court
Vikas S/O. Nagnath Londhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 September, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2967 OF 2017
Vikas S/o Nagnath Londhe,
Age : 32 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Vishal Nagar, Latur,
Ta. and Dist. Latur. ... Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
MIDC Police Station, Latur
Dist. Latur.
2. Santosh S/o Anantrao Shinde,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Srinagar, MIDC Latur,
Ta. And Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
..........
Mr N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the applicants
Mr S. L. Salgare, APP for respondent/State
Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr Shaikh Majit, Adv. for
respondent No.2
.............
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3332 OF 2017
Ranjeet S/o Dagdu Chavan,
Age : 33 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Barshi Road Behind Bajaj Showroom,
Valmiki Nagar, Latur, Ta. and Dist. Latur. ... Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Investigation Officer,
Crime No. 356/2016, registered with
MIDC Police Station, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:28 :::
2 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
2. Santosh S/o Anantrao Shinde,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Srinagar, MIDC Latur,
Ta. And Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
..........
Mr N. R. Pawade, Advocate for the applicant
Mr S. L. Salgare, APP for respondent/State
Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr Shaikh Majit, Adv. for
respondent No.2
.............
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3856 OF 2017
Hemant S/o Balasaheb Jadhav,
Age : 32 years, Occu. Business & Agri.,
R/o. Netaji Nagar, Opposite Veterinary Hospital,
Latur, Ta. and Dist. Latur. ... Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
MIDC Police Station, Latur
Dist. Latur.
2. Santosh S/o Anantrao Shinde,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Srinagar, MIDC Latur,
Ta. And Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
..........
Mr N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the applicant
Mr S. L. Salgare, APP for respondent/State
Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr Shaikh, Adv. for
respondent No.2
.............
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4119 OF 2017
Santosh S/o Prabhu Chavan,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Katgaon Krishana Nagar Tanda,
Ta. and Dist. Latur. ... Applicant
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:57:28 :::
3 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
MIDC Police Station, Latur
Dist. Latur.
2. Santosh S/o Anantrao Shinde,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o. Srinagar, MIDC Latur,
Ta. And Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
..........
Mr N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the applicants
Mr S. L. Salgare, APP for respondent/State
Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr Shaikh, Adv. for
respondent No.2
.............
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01.09.2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.09.2017.
JUDGMENT (Per A. M. Dhavale, J.) :
1. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of FIR registered at
C.R. No. 0356/2016 against them at MIDC Police Station, Latur for
offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There
are in all 13 accused in the crime. Criminal Application No.
7000/2016 filed by Sham Kabra, Criminal Application No.
1490/2017 filed by Shatrughan Ganpati Shinde, Criminal Application
4 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
No. 1831/2017 filed by Vinod Mokashe and Criminal Application No.
2108/2017 filed by Tukaram Sawant, all from the same crime were
allowed and the FIR has been quashed against the respective
applicants.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally all
the applications with the consent of the parties and taken up for final
disposal at admission stage. Since common questions of facts
involved in all the applications, same are decided by this common
Judgment.
3. Deceased-Balaji Anantram Shinde, aged 33 years, was
residing separately from his parents and brothers along with his wife
at Srinagar, MIDC, Latur. On 01.06.2016 at 8:30 pm, he consumed
insecticide purchased by him on the same day at 6:00 to 6:30 PM.
He was taken to Galaxy Hospital at Latur. Inspite of treatment, he
died on 03.06.2016 at 00:30 midnight. The crime is registered on
the basis of FIR lodged by brother of the deceased by name Santosh
on 13.10.2016 i.e. four months and 10 days after the death of Balaji.
However, it must be mentioned that on 02.06.2016, report was
lodged by the informant at the Police Station. Similar to the FIR. The
wife of the deceased lodged another report dt. 03.06.2016 alleging
that the deceased was killed by his parents and brothers by
5 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
administering poison. In view of the divergent report, the FIR came
to be registered late. The investigation revealed no substance in the
allegations of wife of the deceased.
4. As per the FIR, at the relevant time, wife of the deceased
had gone to her maternal house for delivery, hence, the deceased
used to visit the house of his parents and brother, which is situated in
the same locality. That time, many persons used to come to him for
demanding money and were insisting for payment. When the
informant and his father asked the deceased about their demands,
the deceased told them that he owed them money but he had no
money to repay them and hence they were very much harassing him.
Then on his request, the informant and his father paid to the
deceased an amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs and told him to repay their
money and not to borrow again. On 01.06.2016 at 08:30 PM, Balu
Mali gave a ring to the informant about the consumption of
insecticide by deceased - Balaji. When the informant visited the
hospital and made inquiry, the deceased told him that money paid by
informant and his father were spent in business and the outstanding
dues were not yet cleared and the lenders were harassing him. He
felt awkward to make further demand from the informant and his
father and hence he consumed insecticide. When the informant asked
him how much amount he owed and to how many persons, the
6 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
deceased told him that he had written it on a chit showing the names
and the outstanding amount and he would give that chit after
returning home. However, the health of deceased was deteriorated
and he died on 03.06.2016 at 00:30 hrs. on 23.09.2016, Adv. Anil
Jadhav on behalf of one of the accused Gurunath Kakde sent a
demand notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the
name of deceased - Balaji. Hence, the informant checked the articles
of the deceased - Balaji and he found one diary containing an
agreement on a bond paper of Rs. 100/- for payment of Rs. 2.50
lakhs payable on 15.05.2016. Besides, there was one chit wherein
the names of nine persons including all the four applicants were
recorded along with their mobile numbers and the amount payable to
them. The informant stated that, the accused Shatrughan Shinde and
Sham Kabra were visiting personally or through their agents to make
demands from the deceased. FIR also discloses that, the deceased
has completed work of one B. K. Jadhav from Belgaon but he had not
paid his dues and, therefore, the deceased was constrained to obtain
loan from the aforesaid persons. The note shows following amounts
payable to different persons.
Sr. No. Name of person Amount
1 Sham Toshniwal (Kabra) Rs. 1,00,000/-
2 Ranjit Chavan Rs. 25,000/-
7 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
3 Vinod Mokashe Rs. 50,000/-
4 Santosh Chavan Rs. 50,000/-
Rs. 1,00,000/-
5 Tukaram Sawant
Rs. 50,000/-
6 Hemant Jadhav (Patsanstha) Rs. 50,000/-
7 Vikas Londhe Rs. 25,000/-
8 Balaji Kakade Rs. 80,000/-
5. Learned APP has filed say of the Investigating Officer and it
discloses that, the police had visited the Galaxy Hospital but could
not record the dying declaration of Balaji as he was unconscious. The
investigation revealed that, on 02.06.2016 i.e. after consumption of
insecticide, before death of Balaji, the informant Santosh-respondent
No. 2 has filed a report similar to the present FIR. The only difference
is that it is silent regarding receipt of notice from Gurunath Kakade
and the stamp paper of loan of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and chit left by the
deceased showing outstanding amount payable to various accused
persons. On 03.06.2016, Pooja - wife of the deceased lodged FIR
that on 01.06.2016 at 07:30 to 8:00 PM the deceased had gone to the
house of his parents for partition and that time his parents and
brother had assaulted him and administered poison and without
intimation to her, her husband was admitted in Galaxy Hospital. Her
father was informed about the incident only on 03.06.2016 at 01:00
to 01:30 PM after the death of Balaji. When she visited the hospital,
she saw injuries on the person of the deceased including on the skull.
8 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
6. Learned advocate for the applicants have argued that the
allegations in the FIR even if taken at their face value, do not disclose
the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide. There are mere
allegations that some amounts were advanced by the applicants to
the deceased and they were demanding those amounts back. These
facts do not attract the ingredients of abetment as defined u/s 107 of
Indian Penal Code. It is also argued and reliance is also placed on
the report lodged by wife of the deceased against the informant and
his parents. It is argued that, the deceased had married to Pooja
against the wishes of the informant and his parents and, therefore, he
had to live separate from his parents. The parents and the informant
had obtained from him a Relinquishment Deed. The deceased had
sustained loss in the business and, therefore, he has committed
suicide. A copy of Relinquishment Deed is produced by Ranjit
Chavan along with his application at Annexure 'C'. The informant
also disclosed that, Pooja-wife of the deceased had filed Reg. Civil
Suit for effecting partition against the informant and his parents
within short time after the death of Balaji. The applicants have filed
copies of the Judgments in Criminal Application No. 1490/2017 and
connected matters filed by three accused persons from the said crime,
delivered by Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (A. M.
9 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
Dhavale, J.) was a party and Judgment in Criminal Application No.
7000 of 2016 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on
24.02.2017 to which one of us (S. S. Shinde, J.) was a party and
claimed parity.
7. Per contra, Mr Salgare, learned APP for respondent/State
and Mr Sachin Deshmukh, learned advocate for respondent No. 2
submitted that the deceased was subjected to persistent harassment
by way of demand of money and he was driven to such a position
that he had no other alternative but to commit suicide. They argued
that, the applicants Vikas Londhe and Ranjit Chavan had abducted
the deceased on 26.05.2016 for recovery of money and he was
wrongfully confined. Their case does not stand on parity with the
other applicants released.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers produced and
the rulings cited. After carefully considering the arguments advanced,
in the light of the facts of the case, the question before us is whether
FIR deserves to be quashed as against Vikas Shinde, Ranjit Chavan,
Hemant Jadhav and Santosh Chavan.
9. The law regarding quashing of FIR is well developed. In a
recent case Taramani Parakh versus State of Madhya Pradesh
10 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
(2015) 11 SCC 260, relying on Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh
Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, the principles for invoking
powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are laid down as
follows:
1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the
Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more
the power, the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases.
2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.
If the allegations are so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can
ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.
3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed
for considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge
or quashing of charge.
11 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
4) Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice
and for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere,
at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in
exercise of its inherent powers.
5) Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in
force to the very initiation or institution and
continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a
bar is intended to provide specific protection to an
accused.
6) The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a
person and the right of the complainant or
prosecution to investigate and prosecute the
offender.
7) The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be
used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
8) Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith
to predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil
wrong' with no 'element of criminality' and does
not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal
offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the
charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
12 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
9) Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
evidence and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction, the
Court is concerned primarily with the allegations
taken as a whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of
court leading to injustice.
10) It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon
to hold a full-
fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected
by the investigating agencies to find out whether it
is a case of acquittal or conviction.
11) Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also
amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim
is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal
complaint cannot be maintained.
12) In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228
and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take
into consideration external materials given by an
accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence
was disclosed or that there was possibility of his
acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and
documents annexed with by the prosecution.
13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of
13 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution
rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The
Court is not expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion formed
prima facie.
14) Where the charge-sheet, report under Section
173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal
defects, the Court may be well within its
jurisdiction to frame a charge.
15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to abuse of
process of the Code or that interest of justice
favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to
do real and substantial justice for administration
of which alone, the courts exist.
16) These are the principles which individually and
preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken
into consideration as precepts to exercise of
extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Where the factual foundation for an offence has
been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and
should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on
the premise that one or two ingredients have not
14 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there
is substantial compliance with the requirements of
the offence.
10. The law is equally well developed in case of quashing of
FIR in cases involving offence of abetment u/s 306 of IPC with
reference to money lending transaction. In case of Gangula Mohan
Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2010 CRI. L. J. SC 3110/2110, it is held in
para 13 which reads as under : -
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, this Court
has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful
in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had
in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.
If it appears to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences in domestic life quite common to the
society to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to
commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
11. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Govt.of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, one Jitendra Sharma committed suicide
15 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
by shooting himself leaving behind a suicide note showing the real
estate business transactions with Jahiroddin and Mahavir Prasad.
The note disclosed that some money from business was given to them
but they had become dishonest. They were troubling the deceased
and he was pressurized and brought under stress. In that case, the
trial Court had even framed the charge. In the facts, it was held in
para 22 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:
22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note,
extracted above, statements recorded by the police
during the course of investigation, tend to show
that on account of business transactions with the
accused, including the appellant herein, the
deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do
something which he was perhaps not willing to do.
Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the
appellant and his accomplices was such that the
deceased was left with no other option except to
end his life and therefore, clause Firstly of Section
107 of IPC was attracted.
12. In Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh 2001 (9)
SCC 618, it was observed that, 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
16 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case 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 been
inferred.
13. In Sohan Raj Sharma Vs State of Haryana 2008(1) SCC
2015, it is held that the proximity and nexus of the act alleged
against the petitioners and conduct and behaviour of the petitioners
while establishing the link of abetment is absent in the present case
as is apparent from the fact that the alleged abetment according to
the complainant begun in September 2012 resulting into suicide of
Yuvraj on 24.02.2013, almost after a period of 5 months.
14. In Ramesh Tayade Vs State of Maharashtra 2016 ALLMR
Cri 5049, the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench (Coram
B. R. Gavai & A. S. Chandurkar, JJ.) has observed that, except
statement of father of the deceased that amount was borrowed and
the legal notice seeking repayment of amount coupled with the threat
of life being given, there is no material even to prima facie establish
17 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
that the applicants had either an intention to aid or instigate or abet
deceased to commit suicide by accused. Such intention cannot be
drawn from mere issuance of legal notice and basic and vital
ingredient of Section 306 of IPC is missing. Quashing allowed.
15. In State of Kerala Versus Unnikrishnan Nair 2015 Cr.L.J.
4495 SC, necessity of continuous conduct of harassment to infer the
abetment has been laid down. In the light of the legal principles laid
down herein above, we proceed to consider the individual cases of
the applicants herein.
16. Common material is that, in a note left by the deceased, the
names of all the applicants are disclosed as lenders and some
amounts due to them. In case of Hemant Balasaheb Jadhav (Cri.
Appln No. 3856/2017), after going through the entire record, we do
not find any material against him except his name having been
written by the deceased in the chit left behind by him. Said chit
shows that his name has been scored and the word Patsanstha has
been written against the outstanding amount of Rs.50,000/-. Mere
advancing a loan or making any demand for repayment of the same
will not attract the ingredients of the Section 306 of IPC. Hence, his
application for quashing of FIR deserves to be allowed.
18 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
17. In case of Santosh Prabhu Chavan (Cri. Appln No. 4119 of
2017), as per note of the deceased amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh was
advanced by him to the deceased. The bank statement of the
deceased however shows payments of large amount were made by
the deceased to him regularly. The deceased was having accounts in
Jankalyan Urban Coop. Bank, Kalamb, which shows following
payment transactions by Cheque to the applicant Santosh Chavan.
Sr. No. Cheque No. & Dt. Amount
1 154021, 17.10.2014 Rs. 9200/-
2 154022, 24.12.2014 Rs. 18,000/-
3 154023, 17.01.2014 Rs. 33,000/-
4 154024, 07.04.2015 Rs. 21,000/-
5 158572, 24.05.2016 Rs. 68,700/-
Total Rs. 1,49,900/-
18. The following cheques presented by Santosh Chavan were
dishonoured.
Sr. No. Cheque No. & Dt. Amount
1 158566, 10.09.2015 Rs. 20,000/-
2 158567, 03.10.2015 Rs. 20,000/-
3 158568, 04.11.2015 Rs. 20,000/-
4 158569, 01.03.2016 Rs. 15,000/-
5 158570, 22.04.2016 Rs. 15,000/-
6 158571, 10.05.2016 Rs. 38,400/-
Total Rs. 1,28,400/-
19 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
19. The cheque numbers referred above show continuity which
indicates a strong probability that Santosh must have obtained blank
cheques from the deceased. The amounts repaid per month are huge
compared to the loan shown by the deceased in the chit. There is a
continuity of recovery of amounts by Santosh from the deceased upto
24.05.2016. The deceased unfortunately is not available for leading
evidence and the prosecution has to rely on the circumstantial
evidence. The circumstance regarding huge payment made by the
deceased to Santosh regularly and presentation of so many cheques
of continuous numbers even after dishonour thereof is highly
suspicious and is required to be explained by Santosh Chavan. In
absence of any explanation by Santosh Chavan, these facts infer
persistent harassment by Santosh Chavan by huge amount of interest
as against small amount of loan and the loan amount still remains
outstanding. Charging of exorbitant interest brings depression and
since Santosh Chavan must be having blank cheques signed by the
deceased, it would certainly bring depression and a situation where
the deceased might have been left with no alternative but to commit
suicide to escape from this extortion.
20. These prima facie observations are made at this stage for
deciding this application only.
20 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
21. It is certain that, these facts indicate that it is not a case of
clear absence of material against the applicant Santosh Chavan. At
the stage of quashing of FIR, the Court cannot go into the exercise of
appreciating the material. The facts appearing on the papers are to
be accepted as true. If the applicant has any defence, he can establish
it at appropriate stage but this is not a fit case to quash FIR against
him. Hence, the application for quashing of FIR deserves to be
rejected as against him.
22. In case of Ranjeet Dagdu Chavan (Cri. Appln No.
3332/2017), learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No. 2
have strongly opposed the application of this applicant. The record
shows that, Ranjeet is only the authorized money lender. The chit
left by the deceased shows that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was payable
to Ranjeet. However, the statements of the witnesses recorded and
the Call Detail Record (CDR) show that Ranjeet had made persistent
efforts for recovery. CDR discloses Ranjeet Chavan's Cell No.
9921637333. During the period from 01.05.2016 to 01.06.2016, he
made 12 calls to deceased-Balaji. Out of the said calls, three calls
were made on 01.06.2016 when the deceased consumed insecticide.
Those were made at 09:58 hrs., 14:41 hrs., and 20:02 hrs. The
21 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
record discloses that, within short time after the last call, the
deceased has consumed insecticide. It is apparent from the facts that
after consumption of insecticide, the deceased had given a ring to
Vikas Londhe at 08:36 pm., and Vikas has given him a ring at 08:42
pm. Vikas Londhe has taken him to the hospital at 09:15 pm.
Thereafter the deceased consumed poison between 08:02 to 08:30
p.m. Apart from CDR, there are statement of witnesses against
Ranjeet Chavan. There is a material to show that, on 26.05.2016 i.e.
5 days before the incident of the consumption of insecticide, he had
abducted the deceased to Ujani Tanda, which is 45 kms from Latur.
CDR supports this allegation. There are statements to show that, the
deceased was wrongfully confined by Ranjeet Chavan and thereafter
there were continuous calls by Ranjeet Chavan to deceased.
23. The statement of Dr. Bharti shows that, when Balaji Shinde
was admitted in hospital and injection was given to him, he became
violent and was talking irrelevant but he was consistently stating that
he would pay money later.
24. The maternal uncle of the deceased has given a statement
that, Ranjeet had called deceased and Vikas Londhe to Latur and they
asked him how much amount he should pay to them upto to 6 th June.
22 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
Thereafter, Ranjeet gave phone call to Vikas and told him that
deceased should not be left and he should be brought to Ujani.
Thereafter, deceased Balaji & Vikas had gone to Ujani. When
maternal uncle gave a phone call, deceased could not disclose the
facts as the applicant Ranjeet was sitting beside him. He and his
brother have given statement that the applicant had confined the
deceased and the deceased had given him a ring to make inquiry
whether he would advance him any money. The deceased was
frightened and was requesting him to somehow take him out of the
situation. There is statement of one more person who had seen
deceased Balaji Shinde and Vikas at Ujani on 16.05.2016. When he
made inquiry with him he was told not to stop there and leave the
spot. At that time, the deceased was frightened and could not tell
him his difficulties. The deceased had told the witnesses that the
applicant Ranjeet had wrongfully confined him in one room and he
was afraid that if he would not pay the money, he would be
assaulted. We find that, this is not a case of no material against the
applicant. There is material to suggest that the applicant Ranjeet
Chavan had subjected the deceased to persistent harassment by
demands and even taking coercive steps of wrongful confinement.
The deceased went into depression with apprehension that the
applicant would assault him if money would not be paid. In the light
23 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
of this material, we hold that this is not a fit case for invoking the
powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant Ranjeet Chavan
and his application deserves to be rejected.
25. In case of Vikas S/o Nagnath Londhe (Cri. Appln. No. 2967
of 2017), according to Police and respondent No. 2, the material
against Vikas Londhe and Ranjeet Chavan is the same. There is CDR
showing that, 14 calls were made to deceased by Vikas Londhe
during 03.05.2016 to 08.05.2016, while the deceased made 8 calls to
Vikas, all are old calls except 1 made by the deceased on 01.06.2016
at 08:36 pm after consumption of poison. There is allegation that, on
26.05.2016 Vikas had joined Ranjeet Chavan to abduct the deceased
to Ujani. As per the chit left by the deceased, amount of Rs. 25,000/-
was payable to Vikas Londhe.
26. After carefully considering the material on record, we find
hat the material against this applicant is quite different from the
material against Ranjeet. The most material fact is that, after
consumption of insecticide, the deceased gave a ring to Vikas for
seeking his help and requested him to take him to the hospital. As
per hospital record, Vikas had brought deceased - Balaji to the
hospital at 09:15 pm. The material discloses that the deceased Balaji
24 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
was a close friend of Vikas Londhe and Vikas had accompanied him
on 26.05.2016 to Ujani as a friend and not as an abductor. Vikas had
purchased medicines for the deceased. The only allegation against
applicant Vikas is that he had accompanied deceased to Ujani where
Ranjeet had called the deceased. The statements do not disclose that
Vikas used force to take the deceased to Ujani. Vikas was helping the
deceased to collect some amount which could be paid to Ranjeet and
the deceased could be wriggled out of the situation. The allegations
of wrongful confinement are against Ranjeet Chavan. There were no
calls between the deceased and Vikas Londhe from 09.05.2016 to
31.05.2016. The fact that the deceased called Vikas for taking him to
the hospital and Vikas took him to the hospital shows that it is
inherently improbable that Vikas would subject the deceased to
harassment and create a situation for him to drive him to commit
suicide. We, therefore, find that, the material on record shows that,
it does not make out ingredients of Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against
Vikas Londhe. Hence, application of Vikas Londhe deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
[I]. Criminal Application No. 3332/2017 presented by Ranjeet
Chavan and Criminal Application No. 4119/2017 of Santosh S/o
Prabhu Chavan are rejected.
25 APPLN2967.2017&3 ors
[II] Criminal Application No. 2967 o 2017 presented by Vikas
Londhe and Criminal Application No. 3856 of 2017 filed by Hemant
Balasaheb Jadhav are allowed.
[III] FIR registered at C.R. No. 356/2016 at MIDC Police
Station, Latur for offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code is quashed to the extent of applicants namely; Vikas S/o
Nagnath Londhe and Hemant S/o Balasaheb Jadhav.
27. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
