Ramesh Shriram Buch vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Pso ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3748 Bom

   0103 APL 502.15-3                                                                1



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

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 502 OF 2015


  Ramesh Shriram Buch,
  aged 50 yrs.
  Proprietor of Shri. Agro Agencies,
  Near Bank of India, Datta Chowk,
  Yavatmal,
  Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.                                  APPLICANT

        Versus

  State of Maharashtra,
  through P.S.O. Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon,
  Distt. Buldana..                                         NON-APPLICANT
       Shri Abhay V. Bhide, Advocate for the applicant.
       Shri S.D.Sirpurkar, APP for the respondent.
                               ...
                                   CORAM: Z. A. HAQ AND
                                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED: 01-03.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lays challenge to the registration

of First Information Report No.50/2015 dated 2.4.2015 under

Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

registered with the non-applicant - Police Station.

2. The prefatory facts that would be necessary to

comprehend better the issues involved and rival contentions:

The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant with the accusation that the Duty Officer of the

non-applicant received information that one Naresh Dattatraya

Yamsanwar has committed suicide by inhaling poison. When the

Police carried out search of the dead body of the Victim, they found

a note in his pocket. During search of the deceased, five suicide

notes were found wherein it was alleged that the Victim had

purchased insecticide from Agro Agencies, Yavatmal and double

amount of actual bill i.e. Rs.1,77,000/- was charged, though the

amount of bill was only Rs.66,000/- though the victim had not

received the goods . It is further alleged that the complaint was

filed against the victim to Yavatmal Agricultural Produce

Distributors Association and consequently, the victim was blacklisted

from the Distributors' Association. It is further alleged that the

Victim had entered into agreement to purchase agricultural land

from one Navnit Agrawal and the deceased had given gold

ornaments worth Rs.Four lakhs and/or of Rs. Five lakhs to Navnit

Agrawal but, he did not execute sale deed in favour of the victim

and refused to refund the amount. It is stated in the First

Information Report that due to act of the applicant and Navnit

Agrawal, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide.

3. The applicant challenged registration of the First

Information Report by filing present application. On 11.8.2015,

this Court issued notice to the non-applicant and by way of

ad-interim order, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken

against the applicant. On 8.9.2015, this Court issued Rule and

directed that there shall be stay to the proceedings que the present

applicant.

4. The non-applicant no.1 has filed reply stating that the

Victim has stated in suicide-note that he had consumed poison

due to the applicant and one Shri Navnit Agrawal. It is further

stated that the investigation is in progress. It is stated that though

there is no direct instigation on the part of the applicant but, the act

of the applicant claiming more interest and making complaint about

the victim to the association of Distributors resulted in committing

suicide.

5. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report. Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the

First Information Report and material produced on record, we find

that there is no material or even the allegation to show that the

applicant has either instigated or intentionally aided the victim to

commit suicide. There is no active act or direct act committed by

the applicant which laid victim to commit suicide nor there is any

allegation or proof that the applicant intentionally pushed victim

into such position that he committed suicide.

6. A useful reference can be made to the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618. The Apex Court in the context of the

ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has laid down

as under:

"20. 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. 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

21. In State of Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal and anr, [1994] 1 SCC 73, 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 her life by committing suicide. If it transpires 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".

7. The Apex Court in the case of Madanmohan Singh Vs.

State of Gujarat and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 quashed

the F.I.R. mainly on the ground that the deceased committed suicide

after 7 days from the date of suicide note. It is held that there was

no nexus between suicide and any of the alleged acts on the part of

the appellant therein. It was held that there is no proximity between

both the events. It is held that in case of prosecution under Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code, much more material is required and,

therefore, unless there is specific allegation and material of definite

nature, it would be hazardous to ask the accused to face the trial. It

is held that a criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience".

8. The case of present applicant stands on better footing

than the facts in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra). In the

facts of the present case, there is no allegation, which constitutes

offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no

material produced by the prosecution on record, which prima facie

fulfills ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code alleged against the applicant.

9. The Investigating Agency in paragraph no. 7 of the

reply has stated that there is no direct instigation on the part of the

present applicant forcing victim to commit suicide. The only

allegation against the applicant is that he had made complaint of

victim to the Yavatmal Agricultural Produce Distributors' Association

and consequently, the victim was blacklisted from Distributors

Association. In our opinion, the filing of complaint with Yavatmal

Agricultural Produce Distributors' Association by itself not sufficient

to fulfill the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code.

10. On overall perusal of the First Information Report and

the material placed before us makes out prima facie case in favour

of the applicant that the allegations in the First Information Report

and the material placed before us does not fulfill the ingredients of

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. We are, therefore, of the view

that the continuance of present proceedings against the applicant

would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, we pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application (APL) No.502/2015 is allowed.

(ii) F.I.R. dtd.2.4.2015 bearing Crime No.50/2015 registered with

the non-applicant - Police Station for offence under Section 306

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with the

non-applicant - Police Station is quashed and set aside as against the

applicant no.1 only.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                JUDGE




Ambulkar