Bombay High Court
Laxmichand Devraj Gangar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
(16)-WP-5327-19 & group matters.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2023.01.20
17:47:56
WRIT PETITION NO.5327 OF 2019
+0530
Neeta Laxmichand Gangar ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5325 OF 2019
Mitesh Laxmichand Gangar ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5326 OF 2019
Laxmichand Devraj Gangar ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Kedar J. Patil a/w Sakshi S. Kadam, for the Petitioner in all
Petitions.
Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State in all
Petitions.
Ms. Gargi Joshi a/w Jitesh Mundhwa, for the Respondent No.2 in all
Petitions.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2023
P.C.
1. The contentions of counsel for the petitioners are, even
BGP. 1 of 5
(16)-WP-5327-19 & group matters.doc.
if the last whasapp message sent by the deceased to the
complainant/father is accepted to withdrew for the sake of
argument, still the necessary ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC
i.e. abetment are not satisfied. So as to substantiate said
contention, he has drawn support from the judgment of Apex Court
in the matter of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873.
2. According to counsel for the petitioners, even if contents
in the FIR are appreciated, still it cannot be inferred that the
necessary ingredients of Section 107 r/w 306 of IPC are satisfied.
Apart from above, his contentions are, it is under misconception the
complaint came to be lodged. Learned counsel would further urge
that as far as the accused-Mitesh is concerned, there are no
attributions against him as regards the offence. The only basis for
invoking provisions of Section 107 r/w 306 of IPC is the provisions
of Section 34 of IPC i.e. common intention. He would urge that in
the FIR, it is categorically mentioned that the husband in fact is
always supportive to the deceased and as such he would urge that
even the provisions of Section 34 of IPC cannot be invoked.
3. Learned APP would oppose the prayer, as according to
her, perusal of the contents in the FIR speaks of the last message
which is in the form of suicide note addressed to the
complainant/father. According to her, from the language employed
in the said message, it can be inferred that the father-in-law and
BGP. 2 of 5
(16)-WP-5327-19 & group matters.doc.
mother-in-law have abetted the offence and the husband Mitesh has
also not supported the deceased/victim. So as to substantiate the
contentions, she has drawn support from the various material
collected during the investigation.
4. Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant has
placed on record an affidavit and has stated that the allegations in
the FIR may be permitted to be withdrawn as same were at the spur
of the moment when his daughter lost life. The respondent No.2
during the course of argument informs that he has no objection for
quashing of the FIR.
5. We have appreciated the submissions.
6. The daughter of the complainant Nisha got married to
Mitesh, petitioner in Writ Petition No.5325 of 2019 on 15 th
December, 2017. It appears that all the three petitioners i.e. Mitesh
and his parents along with Nisha were joint in mess.
7. It is claimed in the FIR that the accused/in-laws used to
treat deceased with cruelty and there was demand of dowry also.
8. The last message sent by deceased Nisha to her father
i.e. on 3rd September, 2019 speaks of the discipline being
implemented in the family by the in-laws to which she was resistant.
It appears from the contents of the suicide message that deceased
BGP. 3 of 5
(16)-WP-5327-19 & group matters.doc.
was intending to live her life as per her own wish and not by
adjusting herself in the joint family with her in-laws. She in
categorical terms stated that the accused/Mitesh/her husband has
always supported her and it was in-laws who were objecting her
behaviour.
9. The case narrated in the FIR about meeting out ill-
treatment to deceased Nisha by the in-laws if appreciated, it cannot
be inferred from the investigation that it was within the knowledge
of the in-laws that their act of implementing discipline will be
cruelty to Nisha and she will be driven to commit suicide for such
act. The provisions of Section 107 of the IPC which defines
abetment cannot be inferred from the narrations in the FIR or the
investigation papers so as to form an opinion that petitioners have
abetted the act of Nisha committing suicide.
10. As such, the necessary ingredients of Section 306 r/w
107 of the IPC cannot be made out. The respondent/complainant
has filed an affidavit stating that he is not pressing the contents in
the FIR and such FIR was lodged even if there was no ill-treatment
by the petitioners to deceased/Nisha. As a sequel of above, it can be
inferred that the respondent No.2 is of the view that at the spur of
moment when Nisha committed suicide, as he being lost beloved
daughter was prompted to file FIR with the allegations therein. He
has extended no objection for quashing of the FIR against all the
three accused persons.
BGP. 4 of 5
(16)-WP-5327-19 & group matters.doc.
11. In the wake of aforesaid observations and having regard
to the fact that the approach of deceased Nisha from the contents of
the message sent by her to the complainant appears to be of
hypersensitive in nature. It can be said that the case for showing
indulgence is made out.
12. As such, all these three petitions are allowed in terms of
prayer clause (b).
13. The FIR in Crime No.411 of 2019 stands quashed and
set aside against the accused persons.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 5 of 5
