Bombay High Court
Sharad Darade Superintendent Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
Judgment DNH.doc
UMESH
SHRINIWAS
MALANI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
UMESH SHRINIWAS
MALANI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2022.09.08
14:54:16 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 1806 OF 2021
Sharad Darade, )
Superintendent of Police, )
Having office at Police Head )
Quarters, Daman ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2021
Sandeep Kumar Singh, )
Collector, )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, )
Having office at Silvassa )
Collectorate, Silvassa. ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Umesh Malani Page 1 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, DNH & DD )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2021
Fatehsinh Mohansinhji Chauhan, )
Age 67 years, Indian Inhabitant, )
Occ : Agriculturist & Business, )
Residing at Haveli )
Swaminarayan Marg, Silvassa )
396 230. Union Territory of Dadra )
and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through the Assistant )
Commissioner of Police, Colaba )
Division & Senior Police )
Inspector Marine Drive Police )
Station, Mumbai. )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
An adult Indian Inhabitant )
Residing at Delkar House, )
Opposite Vinoba Bhave Civil )
Hospital, Silvassa,Dadra & )
Nagar Haveli )
Union Territory of Dadra and )
Nagar and Daman and Diu. ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1809 OF 2021
Rohit Yadav, )
Law Secretary, Union Territory of )
Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu )
Having office at Secretariat )
Building, Moti Daman, Fort Area, )
Daman. ) ...Petitioner
Umesh Malani Page 2 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, DNH & DD, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1808 OF 2021
Apurva Sharma, )
Age : 35, )
Resident Deputy collector, )
Silvassa Sub-Division, )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, )
Having office at Collectorate, )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, DNH & DD, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
Umesh Malani Page 3 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2021
Dilip Patel, )
Age : 53, )
Talathi, Revenue Department )
Having Office at Daman Collectorate, )
Daman ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, DNH & DD, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1812 OF 2021
Manoj Patel, )
Age : 53, Police Inspector, )
Anti - Corruption Wing, )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
Umesh Malani Page 4 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2021
Manasvi Jain, )
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, )
Police Head Quarters, )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2021
Praful Khoda Patel, )
Age : 63, )
Administrator, Union Territory of )
Dadra Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu )
Having Office at Secretariat )
Building, Moti Daman, Fort Area, )
Daman ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
(Through Senior Police Inspector )
Umesh Malani Page 5 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Marine Drive Police Station, )
Mumbai.) )
)
2. Abhinav Mohan Delkar, )
Age : 30 years, Occ : Business, )
R/o. Delkar House, Near Vinoba )
Bhave Civil Hospital, Silvassa, )
DNH. )
)
3. Union Territory, )
(through its Standing Counsel )
at Mumbai) ) ...Respondents
***
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel a/w Mrs. Varsha
Palav, Mr. Ajinkya Palav, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Nilesh
Kumbhari i/by The Laureate for Petitioner in
WP/1653/2021.
Mr. Raja Thakare, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Siddharth
Jagushtre for Petitioner in WP/1806/2021.
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Siddhant Rai,
Ms. Priyanka Chavan i/by Sunny Punamiya for Petitioner
in WP/1813/2021.
Mr. Amit Desai, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Sunny Bhimra for
Petitioner in WP/1538/2021.
Mr. Vikram Nankani a/w Mr. Dhruv Nyayadhish i/by Mr.
Sunny Bhimra for Petitioner in WP/1808/2021.
Mr. Pranav Badheka a/w Mr. Harsh Dedia i/by Mr. Sunny
Punamiya for Petitioner in WP/1812/2021.
Mr. Ashwin Thool a/w Mr. Sanjay Kamble for Petitioner
in WP/1811/2021.
Mr. Rahul Walia a/w Ms. Kunjan Thakur for Petitioner in
WP/1809/2021.
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Counsel, Spl. PP a/w Ms. A. S.
Pai, PP, Mr. Manoj Badgujar, APP for Respondent - State
in WP/1538/2021, 1808/2021, 1807/2021 & 1813/2021.
Umesh Malani Page 6 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. A. S. Pai,
PP, Mr. Manoj Badgujar, APP for Respondent - State in
WP/1812/2021.
Ms. A. S. Pai, PP, for Respondent - State in
WP/1806/2021, 1809/2021, 1811/2021 & 1653/2021.
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kamlesh
Ghumre i/by Ms. Sonali Jadhav for Respondent No. 2 in
WP/1807/2021.
Mr. H.H. Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Kamlesh Gumre i/
by Ms. Sonali Jadhav for Respondent No. 2 in
WP/1808/2021, 1806/2021, 1653/2021.
Mr. Kamlesh Ghumare i/by Ms. Sonali Jadhav for
Respondent No. 2 - in WP/1809/2021, WP/1811/2021,
WP/1812/2021, WP/1813/2021, WP/1538/2021.
Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar a/w Mr. Anikesh Pawar for
Respondent No. 3.
***
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ
RESERVED ON : JULY 05, 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 08, 2022
JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final
disposal, at admission stage itself.
2. Though these bunch of Petitions are filed at
the instance of individual Petitioners, in all these
Petitions by way of principal prayers of quashment of
Umesh Malani Page 7 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
first information report bearing No. 36 of 2021 dated
09th March, 2021, registered with Marine Drive Police
Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 506, 389, 120-B of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short "IPC") read with Sections 3 (1)(N),
3(1)(P), 3(2)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short "Atrocities Act") is sought for or/and by
way of interim prayers, protection from coercive action
is also sought for, as such, the Petitions are clubbed
together and taken up for hearing with consent of
learned Counsel appearing for respective parties.
3. C.R. No. 36 of 2021 is registered at the
instance of Abhinav Mohanbhai Delkar, who is one of the
Respondent in these Petitions and son of Mohanbhai
Sanjibhai Delkar (hereinafter referred to as
"deceased"). It is stated in the first information
report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") that deceased
was a prominent tribal leader and was representing area
/ constituency, namely, Dadra and Nagar Haveli since
1989 as Member of Parliament. On 21st February, 2021,
deceased along with driver Ashok Patel and private
Umesh Malani Page 8 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
bodyguard Nandu Wankhede reached Mumbai for attending
some Court matter. The deceased lodged in Sea Green
South Hotel, Marine Drive. On 22nd February, 2021
deceased committed suicide by hanging in Room No. 512
and this information was intimated to Abhinav Delkar,
son of deceased, through driver Ashok Patel.
Immediately in the evening Respondent - Abhinav Delkar
reached Mumbai and returned back to Silvasa with dead
body of deceased. On 01st March, 2021, Abhinav Delkar
again reached Mumbai and made inquiry with police
authorities attached to Marine Drive Police Station
about the suicide of his father and it was informed to
him by investigating officer that deceased left a
suicide note as well the minutes of Parliamentary
Privilege Committee (hereinafter referred to as "said
committee"). As Abhinav Delkar was to perform certain
religious rituals and as he was not in fit mental
condition, his statement was not recorded on 01st March,
2021. After completing the religious rituals Abhinav
Delkar again reached Mumbai and his statement was then
recorded on 09th March, 2021 and the same is treated as
FIR.
Umesh Malani Page 9 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
4. We may refer to FIR again in detail at later
part of this judgment, at this stage, we may state that
in the said FIR it is stated that deceased was
subjected to an ill-treatment, harassment and
defamation at the instance of certain persons. It is
also stated in the FIR that this ill-treatment and
harassment was under the orders of Mr. Praful Khoda
Patel, Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. As
deceased was unable to bear this ill-treatment and
harassment, he committed suicide. Thus, it was
submitted in the FIR that all these Petitioners by
hatching a conspiracy created such an atmosphere of
pressure and depression which led deceased to end his
life by committing suicide.
5. Now the persons against whom the grievance is
raised are either Government Officials or private
individuals. By following tabular chart, a ready
reference is made to them and their respective Writ
Petitions :
Sr. Writ Petition Name of Designation
No. Petitioner
1 WP/1807/2021 Praful Khoda Administrator
Patel
2 WP/1538/2021 Sandeep Kumar Collector
Umesh Malani Page 10 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Singh
3 WP/1808/2021 Apurva Sharma Resident Deputy
Collector
4 WP/1806/2021 Sharad Darade Superintendent of
Police
5 WP/1813/2021 Manasvi Jain Sub-Divisional
Police Officer
6 WP/1811/2021 Dilip Patel Talathi
7 WP/1812/2021 Manoj Patel Police Inspector
8 WP/1653/2021 Fateshsingh Close associate
Mohansinhji of Patel /
Chauhan Private
Individual
9 WP/1809/2021 Rohit Yadav Law Secretary
6. It is stated in the FIR that fist informant is
residing at Delkar House, Silvasa, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli since his birth along with his family members,
namely, his mother Kalaben. First informant is also
having sister, namely, Divita whose marriage was
solemnized in the year 2017 and she is residing at her
matrimonial home. It is further stated that his father
i.e., deceased was representing Dadra and Nagar Haveli
since 2019 as an independent Member of Parliament and
he belongs to scheduled tribe community (Dhodia Patel).
He was a prominent leader of tribal and devoted his
entire life for up-liftment of social development in
general and up-liftment of the tribal in particular.
Umesh Malani Page 11 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Deceased became Member of Parliament first time in the
year 1989 and since then he was continuously taking
steps for the development of the area and in the year
2019 it was his 7th successful term as the
representative of people of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
constituency. It is further stated that since 1 year
his father was under tremendous pressure. The
administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was
continuously harassing and ill-treating him. The motive
behind this harassment and ill-treatment was to take
control over the college being run by deceased and to
prevent deceased from contesting next elections. The
officials in the Administration were acting under the
dictates of the Administrator, namely, Praful Khoda
Patel. Under the orders of Administrator, Officers in
the administration were targeting deceased. The
following are the certain dates and events :
I. Deceased raised his voice against ill-acts of
the Administrator in parliament as well as to
various foras. This issue was largely publicize
in media and because of these officers in the
local administration as well the police
officers were enraged against deceased and with
an vindictive approach these officials in the
Umesh Malani Page 12 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
administration either personally or through
their henchmen ill-treating and harassing
deceased. Baseless complaints were filed
against deceased. As deceased was belonging to
Scheduled Tribe category, was purposely ill-
treated in the public functions. Then a
reference is made in the FIR to particular
instances wherein deceased was subjected to
ill-treatment / disrespect in public life.
II. 2nd August is celebrated as liberation day of
Dadra and Nagar Haveli. A function was arranged
on that day at Silvasa. The Administrator is
the Chief Guest of the function whereas the
Member of Parliament is the Guest of Honour. As
per the long standing convention, which is
followed nearly 66 years, the Administrator and
the Member of Parliament was to deliver their
respective speeches, but on 02nd August, 2020,
the Collector was the Chief Guest of the
function and he only delivered the speech. Name
of deceased was removed (from the list of
dignitaries). Deceased wanted to deliver a
speech on the occasion, but, he was refrained
from delivering the speech. Deceased made
complaint about this incident to the said
committee as well as to the Hon'ble Speaker,
Lok Sabha. On 02nd September, 2020 the Resident
Deputy Collector made a derogatory reference to
deceased in his letter.
Umesh Malani Page 13 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
III.On a scheduled visit dated 17th and 18th
September, 2020 of Shri. Nityanand Rai, Home
Minister for State, Government of India and as
per the protocol deceased was required to
invite in the scheduled function, but, no such
invitation was extended to deceased in spite of
name of deceased appearing on the foundation
stone led on that day. Thus, purposely deceased
was kept away from said function, on the
contrary, a false news was spread that deceased
purposely remained absent for the program and
by spreading such false news an erroneous
impression about the deceased was created.
IV. Deceased was to attend a hearing in the
proceeding which was before quasi judicial
authority i.e., Deputy Collector. Deceased by
giving an letter of authority to Mr. Indrajeet
Parmar asked him to attend the hearing as his
representative on the scheduled hearing dated
07th January, 2021 before Apurva Sharma
(Resident Deputy Collector). In spite of
knowing that Mr. Indrajeet Parmar was attending
the hearing on behalf of deceased, Apurva
Sharma with an intention to prevent Mr. Parmar
to represent in the hearing, purposely
prevented Mr. Parmar to participate in the
proceeding and made a false and illegal
complaint against Mr. Parmar to police station
and further informed police authorities to
Umesh Malani Page 14 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
initiate action against Mr. Parmar.
V. Under the orders of Sharad Darade -
Superintendent of Police, Manoj Patel - Police
Inspector started re-investigation of an old
case i.e., Criminal Case No. 137 of 2003 and
this as an attempt to trap deceased in a false
case.
VI. One of the close associate of Mr. Patel,
Fatehsinh Chauhan prepared false and defamatory
videos of deceased and circulated these clips
on social media platforms. This was again a
purposeful act of defaming deceased as such,
deceased issued legal notice through Adv.
Akshay Shinde, Mumbai.
VII. Mr. Dilip Patel, Talathi made a false and
baseless complaint against deceased in the
office of Administrator on 18th February, 2021
and though majority of the objections raised in
the complaint were false and baseless, but only
to harass deceased, this false complaint was
made. Then a statement made about deceased who
was an elected Member of Parliament and was
also member of Standing Committee, Lok Sabha
was purposely and with an ill-intention
subjected to defamation and ill-treatment by
committing breach of protocol and officials in
the administration hatched conspiracy under the
order of the Administrator.
Umesh Malani Page 15 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
7. Then it is further reiterated that this was
done with designed motive with following objects:
i. The administration either not assisting or not
hearing deceased.
ii. By preventing deceased in official functions
and public platforms, so there would be
decrease in the rapport between deceased and
public at large and this would lead to his
defeat in the elections.
iii. By these acts, deceased would be subjected to
lowering down his image in public eye and
either he may not contest the election or if he
contest the elections he would be defeated.
iv. Then a reference is made to complaints made by
deceased to various authorities. Then it is
further stated in the FIR that deceased formed
a trust and under the said trust, one college,
namely, SSR College was being run. There is
heavy demand for admissions in this college but
the Administrator wanted to take college under
his control but present price of the property
i.e., land of the college is nearly Rs. 100
crore. The Administrator was making continuous
attempts to take control of the said college
and also was making attempts to reach this
object with help of the officials in the
administration. Administrator was also
insisting upon for accommodating 8 trustees out
Umesh Malani Page 16 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
of 11 trustees of his choice and threats were
extended that if 8 trustees of the choice of
trustees are not accommodated deceased would be
implicated in false cases.
v. An arrest of Mr. Parmar, close associate of
deceased, was effected by implicating him in
false offence. When Abhinav Delkar informed
deceased to take recourse against the
Administrator by following legal remedies,
deceased refused to made any complaint as per
the suggestion of Abhinav Delkar on the ground
that if such complaint is made or if legal
remedies exhausted or if he goes to media,
there may be further ill-treatment not only to
deceased but also to his family members
including physical injuries would be caused and
as such, deceased lodged no report as per the
suggestions of Abhinav Delkar.
vi. It is further stated in the FIR that deceased
had clean image and except certain political
agitations, there is no other criminal
antecedents against deceased. It is further
stated in the FIR that deceased appeared before
the said committee and made it clear that if
the harassment is not stopped then there is no
other option left with him but to commit
suicide. In spite of this, there was no change
in the behaviour of officials in the
administration. It is further stated that
Umesh Malani Page 17 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
deceased faced many adverse situations in life
boldly but because of the said ill-treatment he
was under depression and was constantly stating
to his mother to take care and ultimately he
committed suicide. It is further stated in the
FIR that deceased was apprehensive about if he
commits suicide at Silvasa there would not be a
proper investigation as such, he purposely
committed suicide at Mumbai. Then FIR concludes
reiterating pressure of Administrator and other
officials in the administration. Then a
reference is again made about the demand of Rs.
25 crore and control over the college.
8. Now the Petitioners who have approached this
Court by their respective Petitions seeking quashment
of FIR, hereinafter, we may deal with the individual
Petitioners qua their role / allegations on the
backdrop of FIR.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective
Petitioners advanced their submissions and common
grounds raised by them are as follows:
I. Taking the FIR as it stands would only reflect
that deceased himself admitted that he was
active in social and political life for a
considerable long period. It is further admitted
that deceased had faced many adversities in his
Umesh Malani Page 18 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
life and was bold enough to face these
adversities and proceed further in his active
political career.
II. It was only the assumption and presumption of
deceased that officers in the administration
were acting under the orders of the
Administrator and the private individuals were
having the close association with the
Administrator and under the dictates of the
Administrator the private individuals were
acting vindictively against the deceased.
III.It was also vehemently submitted by the learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the
copy of the suicide note is not made available
to the Petitioners and it is only referred in
the FIR and as this very material piece itself
is undisclosed and withhold and the Petitioners
are left only to guess work.
IV. In so far as the incidents quoted in the FIR is
concerned, it is submitted that there is no
close proximity of these incidents and the act
of committing suicide by deceased. On one hand,
it is specifically stated in the FIR that
deceased was active in political and social life
for considerable long period and was a bold
person and on the other hand, by referring to
such stray incidents that too in respect of
certain individuals a conclusion cannot be drawn
Umesh Malani Page 19 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
that all the Petitioners i.e., certain private
individuals and officers in the Administration
hatched conspiracy and by these stray incidents
such a situation is created that deceased
committed suicide. Thus, mere assumption and
presumption are not sufficient enough to attract
the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
V. It is also submitted by learned Counsel
appearing for Petitioners that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others1, had framed
certain guidelines for exercising the powers of
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and case of Petitioners
squarely falls in these guidelines.
VI. It is also submitted that FIR is silent on the
aspect as to whether there was any personal
animus of the Petitioners with deceased and it
is only stated in the FIR that the Petitioners
were acting under the directions of the
Administrator. Thus, if the FIR is silent on the
aspect of the enmity or grudge being carried by
the Petitioners against the deceased a mere
general and baseless statement that the
Petitioners joined together and hatched
conspiracy under the directions of the
Administrator and as such, have committed the
offence under IPC or Atrocities Act is wholly
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Umesh Malani Page 20 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
unsustainable and untenable.
10. Now we may deal with the submissions of
learned Counsel appearing for respective Petitioners.
11. Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Petitioner - Fatehsinh Mohansinhji
Chauhan in Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2021, submitted
that the Petitioner is active in social and political
life since long. He was member of the Pradesh Council
and was councilor to the then Administrator of Dadra
and Nagar Haveli for the period 1989-1993. He was
leader of opposition and member in Silvassa Municipal
Council from 2016-2020. Petitioner is also the Chairman
of charitable trust and this trust runs various
education institutions imparting education from primary
to graduation level. It is submitted by Mr. Gupte
appearing for Petitioner that the Petitioner himself
introduced deceased in the active politics and when the
Petitioner was president of unit of political party, he
appointed deceased as Secretary of the unit.
Subsequently, due to ideological differences,
Petitioner separated from deceased but this was only an
ideological difference and Petitioner never carried a
Umesh Malani Page 21 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
personal grudge against deceased. Mr. Gupte further
submitted that on personal front Petitioner constantly
maintained good relations with deceased and his family
members. Mr. Gupte further submitted that when deceased
was elected as Member of Parliament and had attended
meeting of Silvassa Municipal Council on 17th December,
2019, the Petitioner was elected as Councilor at that
time and on that occasion, Petitioner extended a warm
welcome to deceased. Thus, Mr. Gupte vehemently
submitted that mere difference in ideologies cannot be
a reason to draw a conclusion that Petitioner was
carrying a grudge and ill-motive against deceased.
12. Mr. Gupte further submitted that Petitioner
himself was subjected to certain actions initiated by
administration and these actions were in the nature of
complaint and certain revenue proceedings. Petitioner
immediately availed the legal remedies against these
actions. It may not be necessary to refer in detail
about the legal remedies exhausted by the Petitioner,
suffice it to say, that the Petitioner had approached
this Court also and was protected by the orders of this
Court. A detailed reference is made in the Petition
Umesh Malani Page 22 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
about the other actions initiated by the Revenue
Authorities and the remedies availed by the Petitioner.
Mr. Gupte submitted that these incidents are of the
year 2016 to 2018. Thus, the submission is, when the
Petitioner himself was subjected to certain actions
initiated by the officials in the administration and
the Petitioner challenging these actions by availing
legal remedies, there was no reason for the Petitioner
to join officials in the administration leave aside
hatching any conspiracy against deceased.
13. Mr. Gupte submitted that in so far as certain
incidents referred to in the FIR and more particularly
circulating certain news items and videos are
concerned, deceased himself had issued legal notice of
defamation as such, when the deceased was boldly
availing the appropriate legal remedies against alleged
acts of the officials in the administration, it cannot
be said that the deceased was under pressure of the
officials. Mr. Gupte further submitted that attracting
certain provisions against the Petitioner under IPC as
well as under the Atrocities Act, is wholly
unsustainable on the face of the contents of the FIR.
Umesh Malani Page 23 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Mr. Gupte further submitted that for attracting Section
306 of IPC there are three pre-requisites, namely,
intention, abetment and a positive act (of abetment).
On the backdrop of his detailed submissions, which are
quoted above, Mr. Gupte, further submitted that none of
these pre-requisites is complied with against the
Petitioner.
14. Mr. Gupte further submitted that contents
stated in the FIR falls too short to attract the
provisions under Sections 506, 389 read with Section
120(B) of IPC. Mr. Gupte further submitted that
mechanically attracting the provisions of Atrocities
Act against the Petitioner, is a very serious flaw and
without their being any requisite material the
Respondent Authority ought not to have attracted these
provisions against the Petitioner. On this count also
the case of Petitioner squarely covered under the
guidelines in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra). Mr.
Gupte further submitted that for attracting the
provisions of Atrocities Act a reference is made to
incidents wherein deceased was not invited to public
function. Mr. Gupte further submitted that all the acts
Umesh Malani Page 24 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
related to the said public function such as extending
invitation to the dignitaries, maintenance of protocol,
permission for delivering the speeches in the said
function were to be performed by the administration.
The Petitioner had absolutely no role to play in any of
these acts. It is not even remotely stated in the FIR
that the Petitioner was to perform any of the act or
had any role in these acts to play in such a situation
the attraction of provisions under Atrocities Act,
namely, Section 3(1)(n), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(ii), 3(2)(va),
is wholly unsustainable. Mr. Gupte further submitted
that firstly the Petitioner had no role to play in the
official functions and secondly, the Petitioner had no
control over the speeches of the individual persons in
that particular function as such, the attractions of
the provisions under Atrocities Act again is a serious
flaw and subjecting the Petitioner to a criminal
prosecution pursuant to the FIR is nothing but an abuse
of process of law and this is a fit case where this
Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") to
protect the Petitioner from such an abuse of process of
law.
Umesh Malani Page 25 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
15. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gupte,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner placed
heavy reliance on following judgments: Madan Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another2, Gangula Mohan
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, Mahendra Singh and
Another Vs. State of M.P4, Geo Varghese Vs. The State of
Rajasthan and Anr5, & State Vs. Nalini and Others6.
Thus, learned Counsel prayed for allowing the Petition.
16. Mr. Rajiv Chavan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Petitioner - Manasvi Jain, Sub-Divisional
Police Officer in Writ Petition No. 1813 of 2021, by
referring to the FIR submitted that the allegations
against the Petitioner is only by way of a reference in
the concluding part of the FIR and it is stated that
the Petitioner along with other officials hatched a
conspiracy against deceased and caused harassment and
there is a allegation of demand of the amount and
lodgment of false cases. Mr. Chavan further submitted
that in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 2 in the Petition i.e., Abhinav Delkar,
2 (2010) 8 SCC 628
3 (2010) 1 SCC 750
4 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731
5 Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4512 of 2019
6 (1999) 5 SCC 253
Umesh Malani Page 26 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
the first informant, an incorrect statement is made. It
is also stated that the Petitioner was involved in the
alleged eviction of SSR College. Mr. Chavan further
submitted that the Petitioner neither has passed any
eviction order as she was Sub-Divisional Police Officer
at the relevant time nor was a participant in any squad
for eviction drive.
17. Mr. Chavan further submitted that in the
affidavit-in-reply, Respondent No. 2 made an incorrect
statement. It is stated that Petitioner being a Sub-
Divisional Police Officer was present in the official
function of Liberation Day, by whose name deceased was
threatened by Mr. Apurva Sharma - Resident Deputy
Collector in said function. Mr. Chavan further
submitted that this statement only refers to the
presence of Petitioner in the official function in the
capacity of Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Mr. Chavan
then submitted that the other part of the statement
related to Mr. Apurva Sharma and the threats extended
by him. Mr. Chavan further submitted that a reference
is made to the eviction proceedings were of year 2020
as such, there was no proximity of time nor essential
Umesh Malani Page 27 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are established nor
there is any material against the Petitioner to attract
the provisions of Atrocities Act.
18. Mr. Chavan further submitted that being an
officer occupying the position as Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, the Petitioner attended the official function
and this act cannot call for any criminal action
against the Petitioner firstly; if certain threats are
given by some other person how Petitioner can be held
responsible for an act of third party or a third
person. Thus, Mr. Chavan submitted that any prosecution
pursuant to FIR against the Petitioner is nothing but
an abuse of process of law and this Court can exercise
its powers under Section 482 of CrPC to protect the
Petitioner from such an abuse of process of law. In
support of his submissions, Mr. Chavan, learned Senior
Counsel relied on following judgments: Netai Dutta Vs.
State of W.B.7, Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of
Haryana8, & Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab9. Thus,
learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner prayed for
allowing the Petition.
7 (2005) 2 SCC 659
8 (2019) 17 SCC 301
9 (2020) 10 SCC 200
Umesh Malani Page 28 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
19. Writ Petition No. 1806 of 2021 is filed at the
instance of Sharad Darade. As the contents of the FIR
are already referred by us in detail, we may only state
here that in so far as the Petitioner - Sharad Darade
is concerned, in the FIR a reference is made in a later
part wherein certain instances are quoted under Caption
"ekÖ;k ofMykapk viekfur dsY;kps lkoZtfud thoukrhy izlax [kkyhyizek.ks vkgsr "
(loosely translated as the incidences wherein my father
was humiliated in public life). Then it is further
stated in the FIR that under the orders of
Superintendent of Police - Sharad Darade Police
Inspector Manoj Patel started re-investigation of an
old case no. 137/2003 registered at Silvassa Police
Station and an attempt was made to falsely implicate
deceased in said case).
20. Mr. Thakare, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner - Sharad
Darade was officiating his duty as Superintendent of
Police in Dadra and Nagar Haveli from 08th July, 2017
till 11th January, 2021. Deceased committed suicide on
21st February, 2021. In the entire service period of
Petitioner at Dadra and Nagar Haveli from 08 th July,
Umesh Malani Page 29 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
2017 to 21st January, 2021 neither any single FIR nor
criminal case or notice in any criminal matter was
issued to deceased. By referring to the additional
documents placed on record, Mr. Thakare submitted that
in so far as cases which were registered against
deceased are concerned, the charge-sheets were already
filed therein. Mr. Thakare further submitted that
though in the FIR a reference is made to criminal case
no. 137 of 2003, as per the record it was the C.R. No.
147 of 2014 wherein certain specific role was
attributed to deceased and as there was also some
material against the deceased prayer for further re-
investigation was made to the Court. Prayer for re-
investigation was opposed by original complaint. Mr.
Thakare further submitted that Petition arising out of
the said matter namely, LD/VC/OCR/46 of 2020 was before
this Court and learned Single Judge vide order dated
19th May, 2020, passed following order:
Heard Mr. Marwadi learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Venegavkar, advocate for
Union Territory. Mr. Venegavkar seeks time
to file reply. Time granted.
Stand over to 17th June, 2020.
Umesh Malani Page 30 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Mr. Thakare further submitted that the said
crime was investigated by a different investigating
officer and not by the Petitioner nor Petitioner was
supervising the investigation and under the orders of
this Court, the investigation in the said crime was
permitted to continue. Thus, Mr. Thakare submitted that
the allegation against the Petitioner in the FIR, on
face of it, are untrue and wholly contrary to the
record. Mr. Thakare further submitted that certain
additional allegations against the Petitioner comes on
record only by way of affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of original informant. Mr. Thakare further
submitted that by way of affidavit-in-reply the
informant is trying to built entirely a new case and an
additional material is tried to be sub-planted which is
admittedly not part of FIR. Mr. Thakare further
submitted that firstly, in so far as the allegation in
the FIR against the Petitioner is concerned, the
allegation is vague; secondly, no role was played by
the Petitioner in reference to crime no. 147/2014
wherein re-investigation was sought for; thirdly, re-
investigation was continued under the orders of this
Court; fourthly, the allegation against the Petitioner
Umesh Malani Page 31 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
subsequently is sub-planted by way of affidavit-in-
reply and even these allegations are untrue and not in
consonance with the record.
21. Mr. Thakare, thus, submitted that initiation
of prosecution or continuity of prosecution against the
Petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law
and this Court by exercising inherent powers under
Section 482 of CrPC shall protect the Petitioner by
preventing the abuse of process of law. Mr. Thakare
further submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply an
allegation is made against the Petitioner that the
Petitioner may influence the investigation in the
present crime and as the Petitioner is now transferred
from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, even this allegation and
apprehension is ill-founded. Mr. Thakare submitted that
even considering the contents of the FIR, on face of
it, falls too short to attract Section 306 of IPC
against the Petitioner.
22. In support of his submissions, Mr. Thakare,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
placed heavy reliance on following judgment: Pawan
Umesh Malani Page 32 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Kumar Vs. State of H.P10 & Asharfi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh11. Thus, learned Counsel appearing for
Petitioner prayed for allowing the Petition.
For ready reference, we may quote paragraph 34
of the judgment in the matter of Pawan Kumar (supra),
as under:
34. The word "instigate" literally means
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. A person is said to
instigate another person when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to an act by
means or language, direct or indirect,
whether it takes the form of express
solicitation or the hints, insinuation or
encouragement. Instigation may be in
(express) words or may be by (implied)
conduct.
23. Mr. Badheka, learned Counsel appearing for
Petitioner - Manoj Patel, Police Inspector submitted
that Petitioner himself belongs to the category of
scheduled tribe, as such, the allegation and attempt to
attract provisions of Atrocities Act is ill-founded.
Mr. Badheka submitted that though reference in the FIR
made to C.R. No. 137/2003, in affidavit-in-reply filed
10 Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2017.
11 (2018) 1 SCC 742
Umesh Malani Page 33 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
by the informant it is stated that in C.R. No. 147/2014
he stated that it was criminal case of year 2014. Mr.
Badheka for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that
Petitioner was officiating as Station House Officer
only for a period of two months i.e., 21 st March, 2020
till 28th May, 2020. Mr. Badheka further submitted that
the said criminal case of year 2014 was never entrusted
to the Petitioner for investigation. Investigation was
carried out by certain other officer and the charge-
sheet was filed in the competent Court. Mr. Badheka for
the Petitioner submitted that the informant is trying
to advance his case by some additional material
referred to in the affidavit-in-reply which is not the
part of the FIR and such an attempt is impermissible.
Mr. Badheka further submitted that as per the
guidelines of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter
of Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court while exercising its
power under Section 482 of CrPC can satisfy itself for
exercising powers on bear contents of the FIR.
24. Mr. Badheka appearing for the Petitioner
vehemently submitted that in the contents of FIR there
is absolutely no material about provisions of
Umesh Malani Page 34 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Atrocities Act and an attempt is made to fill up this
lacuna by making allegations in the affidavit-in-reply.
Mr. Badheka further submitted that there is substantial
change in the stand of informant i.e., Respondent No.
2. Mr. Badheka further submitted that in the contents
of the FIR an allegation is made that the Petitioner
was acting under the dictates or influence of his
superior officer i.e., Sharad Darade - Superintendent
of Police and then in the reply filed in this Court the
informant submitted that the Petitioner was acting
under the dictates of the Administrator. Mr. Badheka
then reiterated that the statements made in the reply
that the Petitioner was investigating the crime is
wholly untrue. Mr. Badheka further submitted that
without admitting even assuming that certain act was
done by the Petitioner it was an official act while
discharging duty as a police officer under the
directions of his superior officer and either
discharging official duty and following and complying
the directions of the superior officer cannot be as an
offence leave aside any of the offence of IPC or
Atrocities Act as alleged in the FIR. Mr. Badheka, in
support of his submissions, placed heavy reliance on
Umesh Malani Page 35 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
following judgment: Dilip Ramrao Shirsao (supra). Thus,
learned Counsel prayed that Petition may be allowed.
25. Mr. Rahul Walia appearing for the Petitioner -
Rohit Yadav submitted that Petitioner was working as
Law Secretary, Union Territory. Reference is made to
the Petitioner only at the concluding part of the FIR
that too in a general statement that the Petitioner
along with other officials in the Administration
hatched conspiracy under the directions of the
Administrator harass and ill-treated the deceased
knowing well that deceased belongs to scheduled tribe
and then demanded an amount of Rs. 25 crore from him
and lodged a false cases and exerted threats to prevent
deceased from contesting elections and harassed
deceased so as to control his education institutions /
college and by such mental harassment led deceased to
commit suicide. It is vehemently submitted that the
Petitioner being a meritorious candidate was selected
as Judicial Magistrate First Class. With his hard work
and merit, Petitioner stood third in the merit and
subsequently, he was granted jumping promotion. Learned
Counsel further submitted that presently Petitioner is
Umesh Malani Page 36 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
discharging his duties at Amravati as Senior Civil
Judge. Thus, the entire service career of Petitioner is
clear and unblemished. Learned Counsel further
submitted that Respondent No. 2 - first informant in
his affidavit-in-reply had added an additional material
against Petitioner in the form of one alleged meeting.
Learned Counsel further submitted that except a general
statement that there was a meeting attended by the
Petitioner no other details are provided in the
affidavit-in-reply such as, when the meeting was
conducted, where the meeting was conducted, who were
the participants in the meeting, whether the meeting
was arranged by the officer in the administration,
whether it was arranged by some superior police
official, no such details are provided.
26. Learned Counsel further submitted that even
for the sake of argument it is assumed that some
official meeting was conducted by the Administration,
then in that case Petitioner who was a Law Secretary at
the relevant time was duty bound to attend the meeting
if it was relating to certain legal issues. Merely
attending the meeting being a Law Secretary by itself
Umesh Malani Page 37 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
cannot be an offence. Learned Counsel invited our
attention to the documents placed on record under
caption "duties of law officer" submitted that as per
the clause (I) (a), the Law Secretary who is judicial
officer officiating in the Dadra and Nagar Haveli on
deputation is duty bound to attend such meeting. It is
then submitted that a reference is made in the
affidavit-in-reply which is filed in July, 2021 i.e.,
after four months of lodgment of FIR as well as after
filing the Petition by the Petitioner to a matter where
aspect of re-investigation is submitted. Learned
Counsel also submitted that in so far as that aspect of
the matter is concerned there was no role to be played
by the Petitioner in the course of investigation and
re-investigation was continued by the investigating
officer under the orders of this Court. As such, in
that view of the matter also, the Petitioner had no
role to play.
27. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the caste certificate issued in favour
of the Petitioner is placed on record and considering
the sterling quality of this document this Court can
Umesh Malani Page 38 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
accept the caste certificate for consideration without
insisting for any further scrutiny. Learned Counsel
placed reliance on the judgment of State of Orissa Vs.
Devendra Nath Padhi12
Learned Counsel then submitted that he is
adopting legal submissions of learned Counsel appearing
for other Petitioners. Thus, learned Counsel prayed for
allowing the Petition.
28. Mr. Amit Desai, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner - Sandeep K. Singh in Writ
Petition No. 1538 of 2021 submitted that at the
relevant time Petitioner was working as Collector. As
per the contents of the FIR, apart from a general
statement that officer of the administration were ill-
treating and harassing deceased under the orders of
Administrator, no specific statement is in the form of
reference to an particular incident. The incident is of
2nd August, 2020. It is stated that 2nd August is
celebrated as a liberation day in the area of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli, Union Territory and the liberation day
celebration function is scheduled at Silvassa. As per
the long standing convention for nearly 66 years, the
12 (2005) 1 SCC 568
Umesh Malani Page 39 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Administrator is the Chief Guest of the function and
the Member of Parliament is the Guest of Honour. As per
the tradition, both these dignitaries address gathering
i.e., they deliver their speeches. It is stated in the
FIR that on 2nd August, 2020, Collector himself became
the Chief Guest of function and delivered the speech.
It is further stated in the FIR that name of deceased
was removed from the list of guests and in spite of
deceased was willing to address the gathering such
opportunity was not given. Then deceased made complaint
about this incident to the Parliament Privilege
Committee. Then it is stated in the FIR that due to
said act of officers of administration and the police
officers created an impression in the minds of general
public firstly that the administration is neither
paying any heed nor helping to deceased; secondly, with
such act whereby the attendance of deceased is avoided,
it would result in decreasing his contact with public
at large and this would lead to his defeat in election;
thirdly, deceased who had a very humble beginning and
was belonging to scheduled tribe category and with his
hard work he got elected for 7 times, by such acts
image of deceased would be lowered down in the public
Umesh Malani Page 40 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
at large and either he may not contest the election or
he contest the election he would be defeated.
29. Mr. Desai further submitted that the contents
in the FIR in so far as the Petitioner is concerned,
are only in the nature of assumption and presumption on
an impression carried by deceased. Mr. Desai vehemently
submitted that in so far as reference made to the
particular incident is concerned, said incident is of
2nd August, 2020. Mr. Desai then submitted that in the
year 2020 entire world was facing a disastrous pandemic
i.e., Covid 19 and India was not exception to it. Mr.
Desai further submitted that various guidelines were
issued by the Central Government and the State
Government to deal with Covid 19 pandemic. Mr. Desai
also submitted that in all the guidelines and standard
operation procedures the focus was on avoiding the
gathering and the crowd in public places so as to
control Covid 19 pandemic. Mr. Desai then invited our
attention to an order issued by the Central Government
dated 29th July, 2020. Copy of the same is placed on
record at Page 155 of the Petition. Along with this
order, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the
Umesh Malani Page 41 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
guidelines under caption "Guidelines for phased re-
opening (Unlock 3)".
Pursuant to the guidelines issued by the
Central Government, the State Authorities as well as
Administration of Union Territories issued various
orders and guidelines. Accordingly, the Union Territory
Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman Diu,
State Disaster Management Authority also issued an
order dated 31st July, 2020. Copy of the same is also
placed on record at page 163.
30. Our attention was also invited to a
communication under caption "New Guidelines of
Containment of Covid 19 in the Union Territory of Dadra
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu w.e.f. 1st August, 2020.
Copy of the same is placed on record at Page 165 of the
Petition. Mr. Desai appearing for Petitioner by
inviting our attention to the order dated 31 st July,
2020 and particularly to later part in the order
submitted that pursuant to this limited attendance in
public functions was one of such steps. Relevant part
of the order reads thus:
Now therefore, in continuation of this
Umesh Malani Page 42 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Administration's earlier orders, quoted
above in the preamble and in pursuance of
guidelines issued by the MHA, GoI vide
Order dated 29th July, 2020, the U.T.
Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and
Daman & Diu by virtue of the powers
conferred under The Epidemic Diseases Act,
1897 and the Disaster Management Act 2005,
hereby extends the lockdown in the
containment zones, so declared by the
District Administration upto 31st August,
2020 and to re-open more activities in a
calibrated manner in areas outside the
Containment Zones in the entire Territorial
jurisdiction of the U.T. During the above
period, the annexed GUIDELINES and
DIRECTIVES along with the SOPs which were
issued earlier for all permitted activities
shall continue to be implemented strictly.
31. Mr. Desai further submitted that at the same
time, the Administration also took care to extend the
invitation of the liberation day to various dignitaries
and such invitation was extended to deceased also. Copy
of the said invitation is also placed on record. Mr.
Desai further submitted that the statement made in the
FIR that on account of the liberation day only the
Collector delivered a speech is also not true. Mr.
Umesh Malani Page 43 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Desai further submitted that liberation day function
was attended by the elected Member of Parliament for
Daman and Diu namely, Lalu Patel, Director General of
Police - Vikramjeet Singh and other dignitaries i.e.,
representative of people and freedom fighters. Mr.
Desai then invited our attention to the copy of news
items published in the news papers placed on record at
page 176 and 177. Thus, Mr. Desai submitted that the
statement made in the FIR are not in consonance with
the record and it is only an impression carried by the
deceased. Mr. Desai further submitted that in FIR
reference is made to another incident i.e., visit of
Minister - Nityanand Rai to Dadra & Nagar Haveli on 17 th
and 18th December. It is stated in the FIR that name of
deceased was purposely removed from the list of
invitees. It is also stated in the FIR that deceased
was not invited timely and protocol was not followed
and it was falsely spread in general public that
deceased purposely remained absent in the function with
this false statement attempt was made to lower down the
image of deceased in the public.
32. Mr. Desai by inviting our attention to the
Umesh Malani Page 44 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
photographs placed on record in the rejoinder affidavit
submitted that it can be seen that all the dignitaries
were attending the function on the liberation day
including deceased. Mr. Desai also submitted that apart
from these photographs, there is an entire CCTV footage
of the function available with the office of Collector
and the CCTV footage clearly show that the function was
celebrated as per protocol and all the courtesies were
extended to deceased. Mr. Desai also stated in the
rejoinder affidavit that this issue was raised by the
deceased before said committee and explanation was
called from Administration and the entire material was
submitted for perusal of the Privilege Committee. Mr.
Desai stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the said
committee after going through the footage and
Administration have not further investigated in the
matter.
33. Mr. Desai for Petitioner submitted that the
Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit-in-reply submitted
that invitation for the function of Minister was
belatedly extended to the deceased and there was breach
of protocol and certain material is added in the reply
Umesh Malani Page 45 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
which is not part of the FIR. For ready reference, we
may quote particular contentions in the affidavit-in-
reply as under :
11. I say that despite the fact that the
Minister was scheduled to arrive at
Silvassa on 17-12-2020 at 7.45pm, an e-mail
invitation regarding the official visit of
Minister was deliberately sent to Shri.
Mohan Delkar on 17-12-2020 at 07.53 PM,
with clear intention to prevent Shri. Mohan
Delkar from attending official function. I
say and submit that sending an e-mail
invitation to Shri. Mohan Delkar after the
scheduled arrival of Minister clearly sows
the malafide intention of the U.T.
Administration Officials including the
Petitioner herein due to which the rights
of Shri. Mohan Delkar have been affected
being MMP. I say that as per the protocol,
"Point (V) Members of Parliament of the
area should invariably be invited to public
functions organised by Government Office.
Then invitation cards and media events, if
organised for the function held in the
constituency, may include the names of the
Members of that constituency who have
confirmed participation in these function.
Point (VI) where any meeting convened by
Government is to be attended by Member of
Umesh Malani Page 46 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Parliament, special care should be taken to
see that notice is given to them in good
time regarding the date, time venue etc. of
the meeting. It should also be ensure that
there is no slip in any matter of detail,
however minor it may be. It should
especially be ensure that: a) intimations
regarding public meeting/functions are sent
through speedier communication devices to
the M.Ps, so that they reach them well in
time, and b) that receipt of intimation by
the M.P. is confirmed by the
officer/official concerned. Moreover, the
Office Memorandum categorically states
that, "any violation of relevant Conduct
Rules in this regard, which violation is
established after due enquiry will render
the Government servant concerned liable for
appropriate punishment as per rule". I say
that the Petitioner and other Accused
played an active role in tarnishing the
self-esteem and self-respect of the victim
and destroyed his confidence so that he
would not contest the next elections.
34. Mr. Desai further submitted that the function
of inauguration program of Nand Ghar and handing over
of three electric buses was scheduled on 18 th December,
2020 at 10.15 am and the Minister was to reach Dadra
Umesh Malani Page 47 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Nagar Haveli and Daman on 17th December, 2020.
Accordingly, an email was forwarded to deceased on his
Gmail account address on December 17, 2020 at 07.53 pm.
Thus, Mr. Desai submitted that an advance intimation
was duly forwarded to deceased by following protocol
scrupulously. Mr. Desai further submitted that it is
stated in reply on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the
communication was forwarded on an email address of an
account which was not operational, and there was
another email account which was operated by the
deceased. Mr. Desai further submitted that the official
email account known to the office of the Petitioner,
the email was forwarded and operating another email
account and if the same is not made officially known
for correspondence, putting blames on the Petitioner is
not only unsustainable, is stretching the allegations
too far.
35. In so far as the visit of Minister is
concerned, the copy of the tour program is annexed to
the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner. It was
submitted that even as per the scheduled program,
Minister was to reach Silvassa for only night stay at
Umesh Malani Page 48 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
about 07.45 pm and was to attend the function at 18 th
December, 2020 at 09.45 hours. Thus, email forwarded to
the deceased Member of Parliament on his official
account on 17th December, 2020 at 07.56 pm was a
communication well in advance and it cannot be said
that the communication was forwarded to the deceased
belatedly so as to avoid his presence for the official
function.
36. Mr. Desai appearing for the Petitioner invited
our attention to the documents placed on record in
rejoinder affidavit to submit that the Petitioner and
the Administration was extending all the protocol
formalities such as, invitation to the deceased,
arrangements of vehicles when the deceased was an
elected Member of Parliament and attending certain
meeting. Our attention was also invited to the orders
issued to the subordinate officers for making proper
arrangements and for following the protocol in respect
of deceased.
37. Mr. Desai further submitted that in the FIR an
allegation is made against the Administrator that an
associate of deceased, namely, Indrajeet Parmar was
Umesh Malani Page 49 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
falsely implicated in the offence and by this
explanation the Administration wanted to give a signal
to deceased. It is stated in the FIR that he had
disclosed this fact to his family members and when the
first informant suggested his father to take legal
recourse against the Administration, deceased stated
that in case either he takes legal recourse or goes to
media, the Administrator may go to any extent that too
he may commit a threatening act to the deceased or his
family members.
38. Mr. Desai further submitted that on receiving
proposal Petitioner being District Magistrate and
Detention Authority under PASA Act initiated
proceedings against Indrajeet Parmar and one Rahul
Sahani. Mr. Desai then submitted that the action of the
Petitioner was subjected to Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board comprising of Hon'ble Retired Chief
Justice and two eminent lawyers, approved the order of
detention and ultimately the State Government passed a
detention order.
39. Mr. Desai further submitted that in so far as
the educational institution of the Petitioner is
Umesh Malani Page 50 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
concerned, certain proceedings were initiated and the
deceased taking recourse to legal remedies and there
was also a proceedings in subordinate Courts, an
arbitration proceeding and also in this Court. Thus,
Mr. Desai submitted that action whatsoever initiated by
the Petitioner was pursuant to jurisdiction of his
official duty, actions were subjected to judicial
scrutiny, in the judicial scrutiny nothing adverse
against the Petitioner is observed. Mr. Desai further
submitted that the statements in the FIR are only in
the form of mere assumptions and impression being
carried by the deceased and the official record is not
at all supporting these allegations and these
allegations are baseless. Mr. Desai also submitted that
on face of such material a criminal prosecution against
the Petitioner who is responsible officer and had
discharged his duty by adhering to the provisions of
law and by maintaining due protocol is nothing but an
abuses of process of law and Petitioner needs to be
protected and this is a fit case to exercise inherent
powers of this Court. It was also submitted that even
on the point of proximity between the suicide committed
by the deceased and the incident alleged in the FIR
Umesh Malani Page 51 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
either the offence under IPC or the offence under
Atrocities Act cannot be attracted against the
Petitioner.
Mr. Desai further submitted that even assuming
certain acts were committed by the Petitioner, these
were acts done in its official capacity and protection
is available under Section 79 of IPC.
40. Mr. Desai, in support of his submissions,
relied on following judgments: Geo Varghese Vs. The
State of Rajasthan and Anr (supra), Dilip S/o Ramrao
Shirsao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr 13,
Gulab Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others14, Madan Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Others15, Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami Vs. state of Maharashtra and
Others16. Thus, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner prayed for allowing the Petition.
41. Mr. Thool, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner - Dilip Patel in Writ Petition No. 1811 of
2021, who is at the relevant time serving as Talathi in
Daman, submitted that as per the contents of the FIR
13 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5240
14 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 147
15 (2010) 8 SCC 628
16 AIR 2021 SC 1
Umesh Malani Page 52 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
apart from a general statement that the entire
administration was ill-treating and harassing deceased
at the instance of Administrator, a particular
statement against Petitioner is under caption that the
incidence whereby deceased was subjected to harassment
and ill-treatment. It is stated in the FIR that on 18 th
February, 2021 Petitioner submitted a false and
baseless complaint in the office of Administrator. It
is further stated in FIR that this complaint was false.
Mr. Thool vehemently submitted that firstly, the
complaint in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is
clearly a vague; secondly, even assuming and admitting
there was some complaint submitted in the office of
Administrator the said complaint in respect of a
proceeding before the Revenue Authority to which the
wife of the Petitioner was a party and wherein notice
was served on the wife of Petitioner through Tahsildar
of Silvassa, Circle 1. Thus, the submission is, the
contents of the FIR, on face of it, contrary to the
record and with such a vague and unsustainable material
no offence can be made out against the Petitioner &
asking the Petitioner to undergo criminal proceeding is
clearly an abuse of process of law. Mr. Thool
Umesh Malani Page 53 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
vehemently submitted that the case of Petitioner
squarely covers in the guidelines of judgment in the
matter of Bhajan Lal (supra).
42. Mr. Thool, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply
filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 only general
statement that the officers in the Administration are
acting under the directions of the Administrator and
ill-treating and harassing deceased is appearing. Mr.
Thool further submitted that a reference is made in the
reply to a criminal case pending before the learned
JMFC, Silvassa against the Petitioner. Mr. Thool
further submitted that as the said criminal case is
nothing to do with the present matter, the allegation
in the affidavit-in-reply that the Petitioner had
suppressed material from this Court, cannot be
accepted. Further the allegation that as the Petitioner
is occupying the office of Talathi and he would be in a
position to influence witnesses or tamper with
evidence, also cannot be accepted without their being
any material against the Petitioner.
43. Mr. Thool further submitted that in the
Umesh Malani Page 54 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2
only general statement is made that there is a
voluminous material collected during the course of
investigation which would indicate prima facie that a
conspiracy was hatched. Mr. Thool further submitted
that though it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that
voluminous material is collected during the course of
investigation, there is no slightest reference of any
positive act being committed by the Petitioner or any
part being played by the Petitioner in the course of
alleged conspiracy being hatched. Mr. Thool vehemently
submitted that the Petitioner himself belongs to Dedhia
community which is a scheduled tribe community, thus,
in such a situation offfence under Atrocities Act are
not attracted against the Petitioner.
44. Mr. Thool appearing for Petitioner, in support
of his submissions, placed reliance on following
judgments: Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another17, Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another18, Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh19,
17 (2020) 10 SCC 710
18 (2015) 7 SCC 423
19 (2020) 8 SCC 763
Umesh Malani Page 55 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh20, Suhas and
Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others21, Atul Kumar
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi22 & State of Orissa Vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi (supra).
Thus, Mr. Thool appearing for the Petitioner
prayed for quashing FIR qua the Petitioner by allowing
Petition.
45. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Petitioner - Apurva Sharma in Writ Petition No.
1808 of 2021 submitted that at the relevant time
Petitioner was working as Resident Deputy Collector and
as per the hierarchy of the Administration, he was a
junior officer to the District Collector. Mr. Nankani
then submitted that apart from general allegations
against the Petitioner certain incidences are quoted to
submit that deceased was subjected to an harassment and
ill-treatment at the hands of Petitioner. A reference
is made to the liberation day celebration. Mr. Nankani
further submitted that though it is alleged that there
was an long standing convention that while celebrating
20 (2008) 12 SCC 531
21 2017 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 487
22 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4107
Umesh Malani Page 56 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
the liberation day the Member of Parliament was to
address gathering and deliver speech, but, due to
peculiar circumstance, namely, Covid 19 pandemic there
was certain restrictions. Mr. Nankani then referred to
certain guidelines and these guidelines are already
referred by us while dealing with the submissions of
learned Senior Counsel Mr. Amit Deasi appearing for
Petitioner - Sandeep K. Singh in Writ Petition No.
1538 of 2021. It may not be necessary for us to repeat
these guidelines.
46. Mr. Nankani then submitted that in the
affidavit-in-reply certain additional ground is raised
and admittedly the same is not reflecting in FIR. Mr.
Nankani further submitted that even additional ground
is raised to suggest that deceased was subjected to an
ill-treatment by this act, itself is not sustainable.
Mr. Nankani further submitted that copy of notice dated
02/09/2020 for hearing is placed on record annexed to
the affidavit-in-reply at page 120. In the notice
addressee is shown as Shri. Mohan S. Delkar, Member of
Parliament, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It is submitted
that while making reference to deceased the word
Umesh Malani Page 57 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Honorable is not used and this was done to lower down
the image of deceased. Mr. Nankani appearing for
Petitioner vehemently submitted that this notice was
part of a general public notice seeking suggestions and
objections. It is further submitted that this being a
general notice, proforma are prepared and forwarded.
Learned Counsel further submitted that staff attached
to the office of Petitioner completed the other
formalities, such as, adding name of the addressee in
the proforma notice. Mr. Nankani further submitted that
Petitioner was not personally writing down the name of
addressee in proforma notice. It is also submitted by
learned Counsel for Petitioner that the addressee is
shown as Mohan S. Delkar, Member of Parliament as such,
it cannot be said that there was no intention either
from the administration in general or Petitioner in
particular to lower down the image of deceased and the
allegation added in the reply is only assumption and
presumption of the first informant without their being
any legal basis to it.
47. Then a reference is made to visit of the
Hon'ble Home Minister for the State. This aspect is
Umesh Malani Page 58 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
also referred to by us while referring to the
submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Desai. At the
cost of repetition, we may only say that the submission
of learned Counsel is the official program of the
Hon'ble Minister was scheduled on 18th December. An
invitation via email was forwarded to the deceased on
official email on 17th December. Then there is another
reference to a grievance that an opportunity of hearing
was not granted to deceased. It is submitted that this
was hearing before one National Council. The notice of
the meeting was sent to representative of deceased as
well as to deceased also. On the first date of hearing,
the representative of deceased one Mr. Parmar attended
hearing. Petitioner under bona fide belief refused
hearing to the representative. Mr. Nankani further
submitted that it was a bona fide mistake of the
Petitioner and Petitioner then rectified the error by
permitting hearing to the representative of deceased
i.e., Mr. Parmar. Mr. Nankani further submitted that
when in the next hearing the representative of
Petitioner was granted hearing, the allegation that no
opportunity of hearing was granted to the
representative of the Petitioner holds no water, as
Umesh Malani Page 59 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
such, the contents of the FIR to that effect is
unsustainable.
48. In so far as the allegations that officers in
the administration and the Petitioner in particular
failed to extend necessary protocol to deceased is also
contrary to record. The Counsel for Petitioner invited
our attention to the material placed on record to
submit that all the necessary courtesies under the
protocol were extended to deceased. It is also
submitted that there is no denial to these submissions.
49. Mr. Nankani further submitted that the acts
committed by the Petitioner were in discharge of his
official duty and as such, neither any offence under
IPC nor the offence under Atrocities Act are attracted
against the Petitioner. It is further submitted by
learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner that though
certain additional material in the form of minutes of
proceedings before said committee are placed on record
in the affidavit-in-reply, this is an additional
material which is not part of the FIR. It is further
submitted that even taking into consideration this
material it reveals that deceased had approached said
Umesh Malani Page 60 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
committee and detailed hearing took place. It is
further submitted that neither the contents of the FIR
nor the additional material indicates that deceased was
depressed, on the contrary, it is stated in the FIR
that deceased was active in social and political life
for years together. He was a bold person. He had faced
many difficulties and adversities in his life. He had
contested elections for more than 7 times. Thus,
submission of learned Counsel is, all these material
falls too short to draw a conclusion that the deceased
was under distress or depression. Learned Counsel then
submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by
learned Senior Counsel Mr. Desai in so far as point of
proximity is concerned.
50. Mr. Nankani further submitted that none of the
element for attracting Section 306 of IPC appears
either in the FIR or even in the additional material
placed before this Court along with affidavit-in-reply.
Thus, learned Counsel submitted that this is a fit case
for exercising inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of CrPC so as to prevent abuse of process
of law. Mr. Nankani, in support of his submissions,
Umesh Malani Page 61 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
placed heavy reliance on following judgments: Pramod
Shriram Telgote Vs. State of Maharashtra23 & M. Arjunan
Vs. State24. Thus, learned Counsel prayed for allowing
the Petition.
51. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Petitioner - Praful Khoda Patel,
Administrator vehemently submitted that except general
statement that too at the concluding part of the FIR,
there is absolutely no material either in the FIR or in
the reply to connect the Petitioner even remotely for
the act of committing suicide by the deceased. Mr.
Jethmalani further submitted that firstly it is stated
in the FIR that the Petitioner wanted to take control
over the education institution of the deceased and
secondly, wanted to prevent deceased from contesting
elections. Learned Counsel submitted that even assuming
these two alleged acts of the Petitioner these acts are
not leading to the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was
either any intention or any motive of the Petitioner so
as to attract Section 306 of IPC against the
23 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1456
24 (2019) 3 SCC 315
Umesh Malani Page 62 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Petitioner. Mr. Jethmalani further submitted that in so
far as certain incidents quoted in the FIR are
concerned, in none of these incidents the Petitioner
had to play any role personally or officially. These
incidents referred to in the FIR and the allegations
are against the other Petitioners as such, the
Petitioner cannot be held responsible for certain
personal acts committed by other officials and there is
absolutely no supporting material even remotely
referred to in the FIR, the allegation against the
Petitioner that under the directions of the present
Petitioner other officials were acting and harassing
the deceased, is only a vague and baseless allegations.
52. Mr. Jethmalani invited our attention to the
FIR and submitted that the first informant itself
stated in the FIR that deceased submitted letter to the
petitioner on 13th January, 2021 and 14th January, 2021
against other officials in the administration. Copies
of these letters were forwarded to the said committee.
Learned Counsel then submitted that in none of these
letters not a single allegation is raised against the
Petitioner. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that the first
Umesh Malani Page 63 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
informant himself stated that when the deceased had a
talk with his family members about the alleged ill-
treatment the family members and particularly the first
respondent suggested the deceased either to go to media
or to take appropriate legal steps but in spite of
these suggestions deceased neither made any disclosure
in media nor submitted any complaint at the relevant
time (R;kauh vkeP;k lY;kizek.ks rdzkj dsyh ukgh).
53. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that firstly the
material placed in the affidavit-in-reply in the form
of proceedings of said committee is an additional
material; secondly, even after going through this
material it cannot be said that Petitioner had
committed any such act leading to the commission of
suicide and in the said committee allegations are
reiterated on two counts namely, control over the
education institute and preventing deceased from
contesting election. Thus, Mr. Jethmalani submitted
that FIR, on the face of it, falls too short to attract
the provisions of FIR or Atrocities Act. The continuity
of proceedings against the Petitioner who himself is
active in social life and discharging his duties
Umesh Malani Page 64 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
unblemishly, an initiation and continuity of proceeding
against the Petitioner is an abuses of process of law
and this is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise
his inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
54. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jethmalani
placed heavy reliance on following judgments: Madan
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (supra),
State of Kerala and Others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and
Others, Gulab Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
(supra), Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of
Maharashtra25, & Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of
Rajasthan26. Thus, learned Counsel prayed that Petition
may be allowed.
55. Mr. Rafiq Dada, learned Senior Counsel
appearing as Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent -
State vehemently submitted that by lodging the FIR son
of deceased has set the investigating agency in motion.
It is specifically stated in the FIR that though there
are various persons in the administration and the and
the Administrator being the head of the Administration,
these persons / officers were working under the
25 (2000) 3 SCC 557
26 (2006) 3 SCC 771
Umesh Malani Page 65 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Administrator. It is also stated in the FIR that a
conspiracy was hatched under the directions of the
Administrator and pursuant to the conspiracy, the
Petitioners before this Court constantly harassed and
ill-treated deceased. Mr. Dada further submitted that
by giving details about the various incidents as
referred to in the FIR and though these are different
incidents, a common thread in all these incidents
leading to an act of humiliation and harassment of
deceased.
56. Mr. Dada further submitted that it is observed
in various judgments of this Court and Hon'ble the Apex
Court that the FIR is not an encyclopedia as such, the
investigating agency on lodgment of FIR conducted the
investigation and then further material is collected in
the investigation or unearth in the investigation.
Learned Counsel further submitted that when deceased
found that under the directions of the Administrator
the Petitioners are harassing him and it would be of no
use either approaching the media or by availing other
remedies. Deceased had approached the said committee.
The statements in the FIR get support from the minutes
Umesh Malani Page 66 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
and the proceedings before the said committee on 11th
February, 2021 and deceased Committed suicide on 22 nd
February, 2021, as such, there is a close proximity in
the acts of ill-treatment which was disclosed before
the said committee and the act of commission of suicide
by deceased.
57. Mr. Dada made available material collected
during the course of investigation in the form of
statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating
agency. It is submitted that in these statements the
witnesses supports the case of deceased. Mr. Dada
further submitted that as the investigation was
initiated as there were certain interim orders passed
by this Court, the investigation could not get further
pace. Learned Counsel further submitted that deceased
was a prominent leader in the region of Union Territory
of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. He was a member of a
scheduled tribe community. He had been elected for more
than 7 times and this shows that he was a respectable
leader of the area. It is further submitted that the
acts and the incidents stated in the FIR are clearly
indicative of an ill-treatment and harassment caused to
Umesh Malani Page 67 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
deceased at the hands of Petitioner and in such a
situation the investigating agency shall have an
opportunity of carrying out the investigation further
and to bring the truth before the competent Court.
58. Mr. Dada further submitted that there is no
dispute on the principle that this Court by exercising
its powers under Section 482 CrPC can prevent the abuse
of process of law and quash the FIR but the question is
whether the case of the Petitioners falls in the
settled guidelines ?. Mr. Dada further submitted that
as certain specific incidents are referred to in the
FIR, there is also reference about the role played by
each of the Petitioners in the FIR and as the
investigation is in progress this is not a fit case
wherein this Court can exercise its powers under
Section 482 CrPC, as such, the Petitions be dismissed.
59. Mr. Dada then referred to certain contents of
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent
No. 2. Mr. Dada submitted that when deceased approached
before the said committee sought the response from the
Officers i.e., some of the Petitioners before this
Court. Mr. Dada also invited our attention to a letters
Umesh Malani Page 68 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
addressed by deceased to various responsible
authorities such as, Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and
Hon'ble Home Minister. Mr. Dada then submitted that
before the said committee deceased reiterated that he
is very must disturbed and only two options are left
with him i.e., either to tender resignation or to
commit suicide. Mr. Dada also by inviting our attention
to the proceeding of the said committee that the
Chairperson of the said committee informed deceased not
to take any extreme steps.
60. Mr. Dada, in support of his submissions placed
heavy reliance on following judgments: P. Chidambaram
Vs. Directorate of Enforcement27, Satvinder Kaur Vs.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another 28, S. M. Datta
Vs. State of Gujarat and Another29, State of Punjab and
Others Vs. Inder Mohan Chopra and Others 30, Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others31, Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another32,
Narayan Malhari Thorad Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and
27 (2019) 9 SCC 24
28 (1999) 8 SCC 728
29 (2001) 7 SCC 659
30 (2009) 3 SCC 497
31 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
32 (2018) 5 SCC 678
Umesh Malani Page 69 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Another33, Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and Others34,
Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi)35, Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another36, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of
M.P.37, & Ashrafi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh38.
61. Mr. Dada also submitted before this Court that
though the Counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment in the matter of Madan Mohan (supra), is
not applicable to the present matter. Mr. Dada also
submitted that though reliance was placed on the
judgment in the matter of Gurucharan Singh (supra), the
decision of the Court was after conducting the full
trial. The order of conviction was challenged in High
Court and then the order of High Court was subjected to
an appeal before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. Thus, Mr.
Dada prayed that Petitions may be dismissed.
62. Mr. Manoj Mohite, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent - State submitted before this
Court that though commission of suicide is a final act,
33 (2019) 13 SCC 598
34 (2020) 3 SCC 317
35 (2009) 16 SCC 605
36 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021
37 (2002) 5 SCC 371
38 (2018) 1 SCC 742
Umesh Malani Page 70 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
the process of abetment to suicide is a complex
process. Mr. Mohite further submitted that there are
certain causes for commission of suicide and
consideration of these causes can be set as a dynamics
of suicide. Mr. Mohite further submitted that it can be
stated that broadly there are two reasons for
commission of suicide i.e., first internal or personal
reason and second, external factors. Mr. Mohite further
submitted that effect of these two factors depends upon
the sensitivity of a person. Mr. Mohite then submitted
that considering these facts different parameters are
required to be applied in the case of suicide. Mr.
Mohite further submitted that in the present case the
external factors, namely, ill-treatment and harassment
of the Petitioners and series of such incidents along
with the internal factor, namely, the deceased was so
depressed that no other option left to him as such he
committed suicide. Mr. Mohite, thus, submitted that
considering these aspect of the matter as well as
considering the fact that the investigation is still in
progress this is not a fit case for exercising powers
under Section 482 of CrPC by this Court.
Umesh Malani Page 71 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
63. Mr. Mohite by placing heavy reliance on the
judgment of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal
and Another39, submitted that considering the
phraseology of section 107 of IPC the requisite,
namely, abetment and conspiracy are reflected in the
FIR. Mr. Mohite submitted that the first informant
refers to various incidents to show how the conspiracy
was hatched by the Petitioner. Mr. Mohite then
submitted that in the present matter there is
application of Section 120 (B) of IPC and the deceased
before the said committee reiterated the details. Mr.
Mohite also submitted that the investigation is in
progress and same needs to be carried out. Mr. Mohite
further submitted that at this stage, this Court can
only see the prima facie material and Court may not
undertake the exercise of assessing or ascertaining the
veracity of the allegations. If the FIR discloses the
cognizable offence in depth scrutiny is not expected by
this Court.
64. Mr. Mohite, in support of his submissions,
relied on following judgments: Pawan Kumar Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh (supra), State of Kerala and Others
39 (2012) 9 SCC 734
Umesh Malani Page 72 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Vs. S. Unnikrishnan and Others (supra), Netai Dutta Vs.
State of W.B.(supra), Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others40, & Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd (supra). Thus, learned Counsel prayed that
Petitions may be dismissed.
65. Mr. Ashok Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 2 - Abhinav Delkar
submitted that though the FIR makes reference to
different persons and their individual acts, these acts
will have to be treated as a joint and systematic act
for a particular object and that object was to ill-
treat and harass deceased constantly on one count or
other or by one way or other that deceased is depressed
and takes an extreme step. Mr. Mundargi also submitted
that the contents of FIR clearly shows that the
deceased was under a tremendous pressure. Mr. Mundargi
also submitted that deceased put forth his grievance
before the said committee also and the proceedings
before the said committee were conducted on 12 th
February, 2021 and deceased committed suicide on 22 nd
February, 2021 as it raised a close proximity between
this two events. Mr. Mundargi, in support of his
40 (2021) 9 SCC 35
Umesh Malani Page 73 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
submissions, relied on judgment in the matter of State
of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 41. Thus,
learned Counsel prayed that Petitions may be dismissed.
66. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Respondent supports the submissions of Mr. Dada,
Mr. Mohite and relied on in unreported judgment in the
matter of Jagmohan Singh Vs. Vimlesh Kumar and Others 42
dated 05th May, 2022. Mr. Ponda also submitted written
submissions and substance of his argument as well as
written submission is that there is sufficient material
in the FIR and this Court may not undertake the
exercise of a detailed scrutiny of the material
collected so far at this stage and as such this is not
a fit case for exercising the powers under Section 482
of CrPC.
67. Mr. Venegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 3 - Union Territory submitted that
officers at the relevant time now posted at different
places and if trial is permitted to proceed they will
have to attend Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Mr. Venegaonkar
further submitted that the acts committed by the
41 (2005) 13 SCC 540
42 Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2022
Umesh Malani Page 74 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Petitioners are done in their official capacity.
68. Mr. Dada, in his usual fairness handed over a
compilation of documents collected by the investigating
agency during the course of investigation. Mr. Dada,
also made available a document under caption " ejhu MªkbZOg
iksyhl Bk.ks] xq-j- dza- [email protected] pk izxrh vgoky ", meaning thereby,
progress report of the investigation conducted by
Marine Drive Police Station in Crime No. 36/21. It may
be stated here that the suicide note referred to in the
FIR is in Gujarati language and a English translation
along with certificate of one Assistant Professor and
Head of Department of English, is also placed on
record. We deem it appropriate not to disclose the name
of the concerned person, we may only state that what is
stated in the certificate as under:
"I am proficient in English as well as
Gujarati Language. I have put my signatures
on on all twelve translated pages. I have
done this translation on the request of
Shri. Pandurang Shinde, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Colaba Division on
27th February, 2021 and I have been paid
Rupees --- as my professional charges for
translation".
Umesh Malani Page 75 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
69. After perusal of material placed on record and
on hearing learned Counsel appearing for respective
parties, we are of the opinion, that there is
considerable merit in the submissions of learned
Counsel appearing for Petitioners.
70. As we have made detailed reference to the
contents of the FIR, it may not be necessary for us to
repeat these contents.
71. The Counsel for Petitioners were justified in
submitting before this Court firstly that deceased was
in social and political life for considerable long
period and it is specifically stated in the FIR that
deceased faced many adversities in the life boldly. A
reference is made to the incidents are mostly of the
public functions. It was only the impression carried
out by the deceased that he was ill-treated or
humiliated, on the contrary, there is sufficient
material placed on record to show that in view of
peculiar circumstances namely, Covid 19 pandemic, these
public functions were celebrated by taking the
precautionary measures under the various directives and
Umesh Malani Page 76 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
SOPs. It was an admitted fact that in these peculiar
times the attempts were being made to avoid the large
gatherings in public places so as to prevent the spread
of Covid 19.
72. The material placed on record clearly shows
that in another function the deceased was properly
welcomed. Now in so far as other incidents, namely, the
visit of Hon'ble Home Minister for State to Silvassa,
and no proper protocol was offered to deceased is
concerned, it can be said that it was only an
impression carried by the deceased whereas the material
placed on record shows that the deceased was informed
about the visit of the Hon'ble Minister for State well
within time on his official email address.
Though it is vehemently submitted that
particular email address was not functional and
deceased was using another email address, but the
communication forwarded to the deceased is on his
official email account. The officers were not expected
to know that how many email accounts are operated by a
particular person and out of these email accounts, how
many accounts are functional. Petitioner and officers
Umesh Malani Page 77 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
concerned communicated details on an official email
account, no blame can be put on the Petitioner and
officers for not forwarding the communication on
another email account of deceased.
73. In the reply it is submitted that the deceased
was not referred to as "Honorable" and this was an act
of humiliation. Again there is sufficient material
placed on record to show that this particular
communication was in respect of a public notice and in
the notice, which was communicated to the deceased,
reference to deceased was "Shri. Mohan S. Delkar,
Member of Parliament". This reference now clearly
suggests that deceased was addressed with a prefix
"Shri" which certainly shows respect to a person. These
notices were proforma notices issued by the office of
the Petitioner and one cannot jump to the conclusion
that this act was a purposeful humiliation of the
deceased.
74. There is also considerable merit in the
submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that admittedly deceased attended the said
committee and detailed hearings were conducted by said
Umesh Malani Page 78 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
committee.
75. Perusal of translation of suicide note shows
that the grievance about the Administrator and the
Officers in the administration by hatching a conspiracy
ill-treated and harassed deceased is reiterated. Then
there is a reference to certain talks with some private
persons to whom deceased expressed the very
apprehension that the Administrator may implicate him
in some false cases and see that he is behind bars.
Then there is a short note to the wife of deceased by
deceased, and a short note to his sons.
76. It is admitted fact that neither copy of
suicide note nor translated version of the said suicide
note is provided to Petitioners, thus, Counsel for
Petitioners submitted that as the contents of the
suicide note are not made known to them, they are
unable to make any submissions on the suicide note.
Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners were
justified in making this submissions. Though, we
refrain to critically analyze the said suicide note, it
can safely be said that the majority of the grievance
in the suicide note are reflected in the FIR. It is
Umesh Malani Page 79 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
also stated in the suicide note that deceased had
addressed the communications to higher dignitaries such
as, Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, Hon'ble Prime Minister
and the Hon'ble Home Minister, GoI.
77. It is stated in the report that on receipt of
the information that deceased committed suicide on 22nd
February, 2021 in Room No. 512 of Sea Green South
Marine Drive, Mumbai, Accidental Death no. 5/21 was
registered under Section 174 of CrPC and preliminary
inquiry was conducted. On 09th March, 2021 son of
deceased attended the police station for lodging
report. His statement was recorded and accordingly,
Crime No. 36/2021 was registered for the aforementioned
offences. Then it is stated that a special team for
investigation was constituted under the orders of the
State Government. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
was head of the team and other members of the team were
to assist the head of the team. It is stated that the
material collected during the course of investigation
is exchange of communication by deceased, certain
documents referred to in the FIR in respect of certain
Court proceedings or quasi judicial proceedings, a self
Umesh Malani Page 80 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
video prepared by the deceased, etc. It is stated that
by drawing necessary panchnama the documents were
collected and the video clips were also stored in a pen
drive by drawing necessary panchnama. Then reference is
made to certain statements recorded by the
investigating officer.
78. It is then stated in the report that deceased
was under mental pressure. It is further stated in the
report that the investigation is now stopped at this
stage and for further investigation custodial
interrogation of the Petitioners is necessary. We may
state that by way of an interim order, Petitioners were
protected and the investigating agency was permitted to
record the statement of Petitioners. It is stated in
the report that the Petitioners who have hatched
conspiracy under the orders of the Administrator and
the Administrator had two fold object against deceased.
Firstly to take control of the educational institutions
particularly, college being run by the trust of
deceased and secondly, to prevent the deceased from
contesting elections. In so far the second object is
concerned, it is admitted fact that the deceased in an
Umesh Malani Page 81 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
earlier election contested election as a candidate of
political party and he was elected subsequently, he
contested election as an independent member and he was
again elected.
Thus, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners submitted that when it is an admitted fact
that deceased contested election as an independent
member and was elected, it clearly show that there was
no substance in the allegation in so far as the second
object is concerned. It is then submitted by learned
Counsel for Petitioners in so far as first object is
concerned, even for that object only with bare
allegations, there is absolutely no other material to
show any positive and active role played by any of the
Petitioners either personally to take control of the
college being run under the trust of the deceased or
assisting the Administrator by any direct or indirect
way so as to facilitate the Administrator to take
control over the college. In such a situation, if both
these alleged objects are not substantially established
and it is only in the form of certain allegations and
an impression of the deceased, then on such an
unacceptable and unsustainable material asking the
Umesh Malani Page 82 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Petitioners to undergo the rigors of criminal
prosecution, is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
79. Mr. Dada and Mr. Mohite vehemently submitted
that as the investigation is in process and
investigating authority be permitted to complete the
investigation, it is further submitted that at this
stage it may not be apt to allow the Petitions. It is
also submitted that let the investigating agency
complete the task of investigation.
In support of this submissions, reliance was
placed on the various judgments. Though there cannot be
any dispute on the proposition of law reflected in the
judgments, we are of the opinion, that the learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners were justified in
submitting before this Court these judgments are not
applicable in view of the facts of the present case.
80. It is a consistent view of the Hon'ble the
Apex Court as well as this Court that for consideration
of the matter while exercising powers of this Court
under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not expected to
undertake the exercise of detailed scrutiny or
assessment of the material collected in the
Umesh Malani Page 83 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
investigation, and it is expected from this Court to go
through the contents of the FIR and material along with
it. As such, we have only made reference to the
material collected during the course of investigation
and refrain ourselves from any scrutiny or assessment
of this material of the investigation.
81. There is also considerable merit in the
submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that the contents of FIR falls too short
for attraction of 120 (B) of IPC. So as to attract
Section 120 (B), there must be positive material to
show that the Petitioners came together for hatching a
conspiracy and effect was given to that conspiracy. In
the present case except bare words that the Petitioners
were acting under the directions of Administrator there
is not a single incident to show that these Petitioners
came together and acted under the dictates of the
Administrator.
82. In so far as the attraction of Atrocities Act
is concerned, even the contents of the FIR falls too
short for attracting the provisions of Atrocities Act.
It is only an allegation in the report that the
Umesh Malani Page 84 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
deceased was belonging to scheduled tribe community and
this fact was known to the Petitioners and Petitioners
have harassed and ill-treated deceased. Now in support
of these allegations, reference is made to the
incidents i.e., function of liberation day and visit of
Hon'ble Minister.
At the cost of repetition, we may state that
firstly there was sufficient material placed on record
to show that the particular function of liberation day
was performed under the directions of GoI on the
backdrop of pandemic situation. The dignitaries who
have attended the function were welcomed. We have also
made a detailed reference to the grievance in so far as
deceased wherein the word Hon'ble missing.
83. There is also considerable merit in the
submissions of learned Counsel appearing for
Petitioners that in so far as attraction of Section 306
of IPC, the pre-requisite is abetment. There must be
material of a positive act, as a pre-requisite for
satisfying the word abetment, the contents of FIR and
reference made to incidents falls too short to show any
positive act committed by the Petitioners so as to
Umesh Malani Page 85 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
satisfy the term abetment which is a pre-requisite of
Section 306 of IPC. It may not be out of place to quote
the observations of the Hon'ble the Apex Court while
dealing with Section 306 of IPC in the matter of Madan
Mohan Singh (supra) as under:
10. We are convinced that there is
absolutely nothing in this suicide note or
the FIR which would even distantly be
viewed as an offence much less under
Section 306, IPC. We could not find
anything in the FIR or in the so-called
suicide note which could be suggested as
abetment to commit suicide. In such matters
there must be an allegation that the
accused had instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or secondly, had engaged
with some other person in a conspiracy and
lastly, that the accused had in any way
aided any act or illegal omission to bring
about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and
microscopic examination of the suicide note
and the FIR, all that we find is that the
suicide note is a rhetoric document in the
nature of a departmental complaint. It also
suggests some mental imbalance on the part
of the deceased which he himself describes
Umesh Malani Page 86 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
as depression. In the so-called suicide
note, it cannot be said that the accused
ever intended that the driver under him
should commit suicide or should end his
life and did anything in that behalf. Even
if it is accepted that the accused changed
the duty of the driver or that the accused
asked him not to take the keys of the car
and to keep the keys of the car in the
office itself, it does not mean that the
accused intended or knew that the driver
should commit suicide because of this.
12. In order to bring out an offence
under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the
part of the accused with an intention to
bring out the suicide of the concerned
person as a result of that abetment is
required. The intention of the accused to
aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased
to commit suicide is a must for this
particular offence under Section 306, IPC.
We are of the clear opinion that there is
no question of there being any material for
offence under Section 306, IPC either in
the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.
13. It is absurd to even think that a
superior officer like the appellant would
intend to bring about suicide of his driver
Umesh Malani Page 87 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact,
there is no nexus between the so called
suicide (if at all it is one for which also
there is no material on record) and any of
the alleged acts on the part of the
appellant. There is no proximity either. In
the prosecution under Section 306, IPC,
much more material is required. The Courts
have to be extremely careful as the main
person is not available for cross-
examination by the appellant/accused.
Unless, therefore, there is specific
allegation and material of definite nature
(not imaginary or inferential one), it
would be hazardous to ask the
appellant/accused to face the trial. A
criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant
experience. The person like the appellant
in present case who is serving in a
responsible post would certainly suffer
great prejudice, were he to face
prosecution on absurd allegations of
irrelevant nature. In the similar
circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta
Vs. State of W.B. [2005 (2) SCC 659], this
Court had quashed the proceedings initiated
against the accused.
14. As regards the suicide note, which
is a document of about 15 pages, all that
Umesh Malani Page 88 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
we can say is that it is an anguish
expressed by the driver who felt that his
boss (the accused) had wronged him. The
suicide note and the FIR do not impress us
at all. They cannot be depicted as
expressing anything intentional on the part
of the accused that the deceased might
commit suicide. If the prosecutions are
allowed to continue on such basis, it will
be difficult for every superior officer
even to work.
Similarly, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
matter State of Kerala Vs. S. Unnikrishnana Nair
(supra), observed as follows:
9. To appreciate the rivalised submissions
in the obtaining factual matrix, it is
necessary to understand the concept of
abatement as enshrined in Section 107 IPC.
The said provision reads as follows:-
"107. Abetment of a thing. - A person
abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly - Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
Umesh Malani Page 89 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 1. - A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures,
or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to
be done, is said to instigate the doing of
that thing.
Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to
or at the time of commission of an act,
does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act."
16. We have quoted in extenso from the said
judgment and we have no hesitation in
stating that the suicide note therein was
quite different, and the Court did think it
appropriate to quash the proceedings
because of the tenor and nature of the
suicide note. Thus, the said decision is
distinguishable regard being had to the
factual score exposited therein.
17. Coming to the case at hand, as we have
Umesh Malani Page 90 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
stated earlier, the suicide note really
does not state about any continuous conduct
of harassment and, in any case, the facts
and circumstances are quite different. In
such a situation, we are disposed to think
that the High Court is justified in
quashing the proceeding, for it is an
accepted position in law that where no
prima facie case is made out against the
accused, then the High Court is obliged in
law to exercise the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code and quash the
proceedings. [See V.P. Shrivastava v.
Indian Explosives Ltd.]
18. Before parting with the case, we are
impelled to say something. Mr. Bhushan,
learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 & 2 has drawn our
attention to a facet of earlier judgment of
the High Court wherein it has been
mentioned that at one time the deceased was
pressurised by some superior officers. We
have independently considered the material
brought on record and arrived at our
conclusion. But, regard being had to the
suicide note and other concomitant facts
that have been unfurled, we are compelled
to recapitulate the saying that suicide
reflects a "species of fear". It is a sense
Umesh Malani Page 91 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and
destroys the will power and forces one to
abandon one's own responsibility. To think
of self-annihilation because of something
which is disagreeable or intolerable or
unbearable, especially in a situation where
one is required to perform public duty, has
to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude
that is scared of the immediate calamity or
self-perceived consequence. We may hasten
to add that our submission has nothing to
do when a case under Section 306 IPC is
registered in aid of Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
84. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners
were also justified in placing heavy reliance on the
judgment of Dilip Shirsao (supra). It may not be out of
place to reproduce observations as under:
13. The Apex Court in Sanju @ Sanjay
Sengar's case considered the earlier
judgments in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said
judgment. It would be appropriate to refer
to the same -
"9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.,
1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306
I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant
Umesh Malani Page 92 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
during the quarrel is said to have remarked
the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court
was of the view that mere words uttered by
the accused to the deceased 'to go and die'
were not even prima facie enough to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.,
1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306
I.P.C basically based upon the dying
declaration of the deceased, which reads as
under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-
in-law (husband's elder brother's wife)
harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My
husband Mahendra wants to marry a second
time. He has illicit connections with my
sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and
being harassed I want to die by burning."
11. This Court, considering the definition
of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C.,
found that the charge and conviction of the
appellant for an offence under Section 306
is not sustainable merely on the allegation
of harassment to the deceased. This Court
further held that neither of the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on
the statement of the deceased.
Umesh Malani Page 93 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
12. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court
while considering the charge framed and the
conviction for an offence under Section 306
I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration
recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in
which she had stated that previously there
had been quarrel between the deceased and
her husband and on the day of occurrence
she had a quarrel with her husband who had
said that she could go wherever she wanted
to go and that thereafter she had poured
kerosene on herself and had set fire.
Acquitting the accused this Court said :
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation. If it transpires to the court
that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and difference in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and difference 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 for abetting the offence of
Umesh Malani Page 94 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
suicide should be found guilty."
21. Perusal of the said suicide note would
not reveal as to on what date the deceased
has written the suicide note. However, even
taking the allegations to be true at its
face value, the question would be as to
whether is it sufficient to book the
persons like applicants for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code. Perusal of the various
statements recorded of the employees
working under the deceased would show that
the deceased had never made any complaint
with regard to any of the applicants. No
doubt that there is a statement of one
Judicial Officer, who had friendly
relations with the deceased, that the
deceased was disturbed on account of he
being transferred to Darwha and not being
permitted to do up and down from Darwha and
on account of certain event that happened
in the workshop. The question would be as
to whether the fact of a person being
disturbed on account of official act done
by a superior would be sufficient to book
such a superior officer for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code or not. We find that the issue
is squarely answered by the Apex Court in
Umesh Malani Page 95 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Madan Mohan Singh's case cited supra.
(Emphasis supplied).
22. As has been held by Their Lordships of
the Apex Court that for permitting a trial
to proceed against the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the
prosecution to at least prima facie
establish that the accused had an intention
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. In the absence of
availability of such material, the accused
cannot be compelled to face trial for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. As has been held by
Their Lordships of the Apex Court that
abetment involves mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing and
without a positive act on the part of the
accused in aiding or instigating or abeting
the deceased to commit suicide, the said
persons cannot be compelled to face the
trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to
commit an offence or active act or direct
act, which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option or the act
intending to push the deceased into such a
position, the trial against the accused
Umesh Malani Page 96 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
in our considered view, would be an abuse
of process of law.
23. No doubt that the judiciary has lost
one of its officers in an unfortunate
incident. However, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the response of a person to
a situation may differ from a person to
person. A person, who is sensitive, may be
hurt if the things do not happen as per his
wish and may unfortunately commit an act,
which leads to his death. No doubt, our all
sympathies are with the family of the
Judicial Officer, who lost his life in
prime age. However, can that be said to be
sufficient to prosecute the other Judicial
Officers, for no fault of theirs. As
already discussed hereinabove, except
applicant no.1, there is not even whisper
in the affidavit of the non-applicant no.2
insofar as the other applicants are
concerned. Even the allegations against the
applicant no.1 are with regard to discharge
of his official duties. As pointed out
hereinabove, it cannot also be a case of
harassment inasmuch as the deceased was the
junior most Judicial Officer in the cadre
of Civil Judge Senior Division and
transferring him out of the District
Umesh Malani Page 97 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
headquarters to another place in the same
district, cannot be said to be an act by
the applicant no.1 causing harassment to
the deceased. If the deceased had any
grievance against his superiors, it was
always open for him to approach the learned
Guardian Judge of the District or Registry
of this Court.
85. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners were
also justified in submitting before this Court the case
of Petitioners squarely covers under the guidelines in
the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra). It may be useful for
our purposes to refer to these guidelines as under:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.(Emphasis
supplied).
(2) Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Umesh Malani Page 98 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or 'complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
Umesh Malani Page 99 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
86. Considering all these aspects, we find merit
in the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and in our opinion, these are the fit cases
so as to exercise the powers of this Court under
Section 482 of CrPC to prevent an abuse of process of
law.
87. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are allowed and
the FIR bearing C.R. No. 36 of 2021 dated 09th March,
2021, registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 -
Abhinav Delkar with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506,
389, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with
Sections 3 (1)(N), 3(1)(P), 3(2)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Umesh Malani Page 100 of 101
Judgment DNH.doc
Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed and set aside qua
Petitioners herein only. Rule made absolute in above
terms.
88. In view of disposal of Writ Petitions, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly disposed of.
89. The sealed packets containing suicide note in
Gujarati along with its translation were taken on
record vide order dated 27th June, 2022 and which were
marked as 'X' and 'X1' for identification. In view of
the disposal of the Writ Petitions, the Investigating
Agency shall approach the Registrar (Judicial-I) and
obtain those two sealed packets.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
Umesh Malani Page 101 of 101
