Bombay High Court
Shrinivas Ashanna Satelikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 September, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 APPLN1175.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1175 OF 2017
Shrinivas Ashanna Satelikar
Age - 45 years, Occupation - Business and Social Worker,
R/at 101, Yash Apartments, Kailas Nagar,
Nanded-431605. ... Applicant
VERSUS
01. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Vasmath Police Station,
District - Hingoli.
02. Ramprasad Limbaji Pawar,
Aged 42 years, Occupation - Agriculture,
R/at Shahar Peth, Vasmath,
District - Hingoli. ... Respondents
..........
Shri. Anand Chawre, Advocate for the applicant
Mr M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent/State
Mr S. J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No. 2
.............
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19.09.2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : ....09.2017.
JUDGMENT (PER A. M. DHAVALE, J.):-
1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR registered at Crime No. 30/2017 against the applicant at
2 APPLN1175.2017
Vasmath Police Station, Tq. Vasmath, District Hingoli for the offence
punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at
admission stage.
3. As per FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 - Ramprasad, his
brother Shivaji committed suicide on the night intervening
30.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 in the field of Satyanarayan Kabra by
hanging himself by means of Saree to a Neem tree. The FIR shows
following reasons for commission of suicide.
Deceased-Shivaji was of helping nature. Since one
Gajanan Kadam from Mondha was in need of money,
deceased mortgaged his one acre of land to the present
applicant - Shrinivas Satelikar for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The
amount was to be repaid along with interest at the rate
of 3%. Out of the loan amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- was
advanced to Gajanan Kadam. Since few days before
suicide, Shivaji was found to be disturbed, respondent
No.2-Ramprasad made inquiry with him. At that time,
3 APPLN1175.2017
deceased told him that Gajanan was not refunding the
money given by him to Gajanan and was abusing him.
It was time for getting the mortgage redeemed and
obtain re-conveyance from the applicant - Satelikar,
the applicant was pressing for refund of the amount
and therefore he was facing mental disturbance. The
informant Ramprasad and his brother Ashok tried to
persuade Shivaji. About one month before the suicide,
one Amarjitsingh and Indrapal had been to the house
of Ramprasad and told him that Shivaji had taken
money from them and he should be directed to refund
the same. When Ramprasad made inquiry with Shivaji
whether he had taken money from Amarjitsingh and
Indrapal, that time he replied that he had taken money
from Amarjitsingh and Indrapal to make payment to
Satelikar and he had also refunded money to
Amarjitsingh and Indrapal with interest. Still they were
threatening and harassing him for money.
4. During investigation, it was revealed that three chits were
found in the pocket of Shivaji. Besides, one small diary containing
names with mobile numbers was also found in the house of the
4 APPLN1175.2017
deceased. There was conversation of deceased Shivaji with one of
the accused Gajanan in the form of audio recording. Its transcript is
produced on record. Out of the said three chits left by the deceased,
in first chit dt. 30.01.2017 written to Police Inspector Vasmath, it was
recorded that, he had mortgaged one acre of land to applicant-
Satelikar for Rs. 4,00,000/- with agreement that it was to be re-
conveyed on payment of Rs. 5,20,000/-. Out of the said amount,
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced to Gajanan Kadam for marriage
of his niece. Gajanan was not refunding the amount and was abusing
him whenever asked for money. The money taken from Satelikar
was to be refunded on 17.01.2017, but Gajanan was not repaying it.
Deceased - Shivaji disclosed this fact to his parents and brother but
they told him that he should handle his own transactions and he
should not disclose them about anything. Gajanan was threatening to
kill Shivaji. This money was secured by Gajanan from Satelikar. As he
was not getting money back from Gajanan, he got himself hanged. It
is also recorded that, sale deed was executed 24 months back, and
the agreement was to repay the amount within three years from the
date of mortgage.
5. The second chit dt. 27.12.2016 is written to Police
Inspector, Police Station Vasmath, complaining that he had taken
5 APPLN1175.2017
Rs.10,000/- as hand loan from Amarjitsingh. He has repaid the same
along with interest of Rs. 5,000/-, still Amarjitsingh was demanding
the said loan amount. He was carrying weapon like knife and
Jambiye with him. Shivaji sought protection of himself and his
family members. He was claiming money with interest at the rate of
Rs. 500/- per day.
6. The third chit dt. 27.12.2016, which is also written by
deceased Shivaji to Police Inspector, Police Station, Vasmathnagar.
In this chit it was complained that he had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/-
from Indrapal for a period of four months. He had repaid the loan of
Rs.40,000/- with interest of Rs. 10,000/-, still Indrapal was claiming
excessive interest at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day.
7. Mr Chawre, learned counsel for the applicants argued that
the applicant has obtained the registered Sale Deed dt.19.01.2015
from the deceased by making full payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is as
per market rate. He has received possession. In pursuance thereof,
mutation was effected in the 7/12 extract. The applicant was not
indulging in any money lending transactions and had no contact with
the deceased. He is not concerned with the suicide of the deceased.
The applicant was released on anticipatory bail by this Court. He has
6 APPLN1175.2017
placed reliance on Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat &
Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 628, Ratan Pundlik Salunkhe & Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. 2016 ALL.M.R (Cri.) 4858, Netai Dutta
Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1775 & Kishor Dattatraya
Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2016 ALL.M.R. (Cri) 333,
wherein it is held that the act of the accused should disclose the
intention or knowledge that the deceased should/would commit
suicide.
8. Mr Nerlikar, learned APP for the respondent/State and Mr.
S. J. Salunke, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that,
the deceased was persistently harassed for refund of money by the
applicant. He was not holding any money lending license, still he
was indulging in money lending. Therefore, at the threshold, the FIR
does not deserve to be quashed against the applicant. An offence u/s
39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 is
added to the FIR.
9. We have carefully heard the learned advocates and perused
the documents collected during the investigation. The copies of chits
found with the deceased were also separately produced and are
considered. The learned APP & counsel for the respondents stressed
7 APPLN1175.2017
on the fact that Gajanan was mediator between the present applicant
and deceased - Shivaji at the time of loan transactions.
10. The suicide note shows that, the deceased was depressed
and therefore had approached his parents and brother but that time
his brother had declined to help him. Therefore, the allegations of
brother of the deceased will have to be read cautiously. Copy of the
sale deed produced by the applicant disclose that on 19.01.2015 the
deceased Shivaji sold his one acre land to applicant-Shrinivas for
Rs.5.00 lakhs. The market value of the said land shown is shown as
Rs. 14.00 lakhs per Hector. At this stage, the suicide note will have
to be assumed to be true. It shows that it was a money lending
transaction. Actual loan of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was given and amount of
Rs.5.20 lakhs was to be repaid within three years. If these facts are
considered, the rate of interest is not 3% per month but 10% per
annum. The interest rate charged is not excessive or exorbitant. The
suicide note does not show that the applicant was insisting for
repayment of loan. In fact, it shows that there was a period of one
more year for getting the re-conveyance executed. It is also to be
considered that, when the applicant Shrinivas was having registered
sale deed in his name, he has no reason to insist for repayment of
loan. It will be for the borrower to repay the loan and obtain the re-
8 APPLN1175.2017
conveyance executed. It is not the complaint of the deceased that the
applicant had refused to re-convey the land.
11. It is true that, the suicide note shows that Gajanan was
mediator for securing the loan to the deceased from applicant
Shrinivas. There is no allegation whatsoever to show that there was
conspiracy between the applicant and Gajanan Kadam and Gajanan
was deliberately avoiding to refund the amount of hand loan so that
the applicant could grab the land. In fact, the FIR shows that,
deceased Shivaji had very good relations with Gajanan and he sold
his land so as to advance Rs. 2,00,000/- to Gajanan for meeting
expenses of his niece's marriage.
12. Thus, it is quite improbable that the applicant was insisting
for repayment of the loan in view of the registered sale deed in his
favour. The suicide note does not disclose that the applicant was
insisting for refund of the loan. It also does not show that there was
any excessive or exorbitant rate of interest charged. The investigation
revealed that the deceased - Shivaji had a mobile phone. The
statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation
are not consistent with the suicide note left behind by the
deceased with respect to the alleged demands of refund of
9 APPLN1175.2017
loan made by the applicant. The audio recording of talk between the
deceased and Gajanan shows that Gajanan was denying that he had
received any such hand loan from the deceased. It shows that, Shivaji
had sold his one acre land and had purchased a flat and stated that
his land was gone. This audio clip does not show any allegations
against the applicant - Shrinivas.
13. The law regarding quashing of FIR for offence u/s 306 of
IPC is well developed as follows : -
(i) In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9
SCC 618, it is held that, 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.
(ii) In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is held that, 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
10 APPLN1175.2017
the deceased was left with no other option but to
commit suicide.
14. After considering the above referred evidence appearing in
the investigation conducted during last 7-8 months, we find that
there was no persistent harassment to the deceased by the applicant
for recovery of loan amount. In fact, there is doubt whether there
was any demand of loan or not as the suicide note is silent about the
same and the applicant was having registered sale deed in his name.
Even as per the allegations in the suicide note, the applicant had not
charged excessive or exorbitant interest and had agreed to re-convey
the land in case the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs was refunded within
three years along with interest of Rs. 1.20 lakhs. The facts alleged
against the applicant even if taken at their face value and read in
entirety do not show any ingredient of abetment as the applicant did
not create any situation for the deceased as would leave him with no
other option but to commit suicide. On the contrary, there are
allegations against other money lenders, who in spite of repayment of
loan along with interest, were harassing the applicant by making
further demands of interest at the excessive rate and were
threatening to kill him. It is made clear that, the observations made
herein above are prima facie in nature and confined for the purpose
11 APPLN1175.2017
of deciding this application only.
15. In the result, we hold that, the offence u/s 306 r/w 34 is
not made out against the applicant. However, the investigation with
regard to offence under the Maharashtra Money Lending
(Regulation) Act needs to proceed further and the FIR cannot be
quashed with regard to said offence. Hence, we partly allow the
application and quash the FIR registered at Crime No. 30/2017
against the applicant with Vasmath Police Station, Tq. Vasmath,
District Hingoli for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34
of the IPC. It is clarified that, FIR is not quashed with regard to
offence under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014.
16. Rule made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
order as costs.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
