Bombay High Court
Varun S/O Suresh Dhupe And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 October, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:39490-DB
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1092 OF 2023
1. Varun S/o. Suresh Dhupe,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ.-Service, R/o Flat No. 46,
Shilpa Co-operative Society,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur - 440015.
2. Suresh S/o. Laxmanrao Dhupe,
Aged 60 years, Occ.-retired, R/o Flat No. 46,
Shilpa Co-operative Society,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur - 440015.
3. Vibhavari W/o. Suresh Dhupe,
Aged 54 years, R/o Flat No. 46,
Shilpa Co-operative Society,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur - 440015. .....Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune.
2. Shri. Sanjiv S/o. Gulabrao Ukey,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.-retired,
R/o. 118, Santaji Society, Manish Nagar,
Nagpur. .....Respondents
Mr. Pratik Puri a/w Ms. Shilpa Pawar for the Applicants.
Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. S. B. Trivedi for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19th SEPTEMBER 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 07th OCTOBER 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) :
-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the Application is finally heard.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 1/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
2) Applicants seek quashing of F.I.R.No.383 of 2023 dated 18 th
June 2023 registered with the Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
3) The Applicants are the husband, the father-in-law and the
mother-in-law of the deceased daughter of the Respondent No.2. The facts
of the case in brief are as under:
3.1) The deceased daughter of the Respondent No.2 namely, Ms.
Harshal married the Applicant No.1 on 3 rd January 2021 and started
residing in the joint family of her husband. It is alleged that the Applicants
treated Ms. Harshal with utmost amount of mental and physical cruelty.
She was made to work like a domestic help in the ten months duration of
her stay with her in-laws. She was made to do all the household work single
handedly including cleaning the house, cooking all meals, washing all
clothes and utensils mopping the floor of the entire house three times a day,
etc.
3.2) Ms. Harshal communicated the incidents of ill-treatments to
her parents, but they advised her to adjust as she was a newly wed bride.
Thereafter, Ms. Harshal and her husband went to Bangalore since they got
employment there. In November 2021, Ms. Harshal's parents went to
Bangalore to visit them. At that time, Ms. Harshal's in-laws and husband
always taunted her that her parents should not interfere in their family life.
Hence, the Respondent No.2 did not visit Ms. Harshal and her in-laws for a
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 2/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
period of one and half year thereafter.
3.3) Applicant No.1 was an alcoholic and used to abuse and insult
Ms. Harshal in front of others. He demanded that Ms. Harshal compel the
Respondent No.2 to transfer his flat at Shankarpur at Nagpur to her and the
Applicant No.1. There are other specific instances of cruelty which are
enumerated in the F.I.R.
3.4) During regular quarrels and abuses to Ms. Harshal, the
Applicants No.2 and 3 always encouraged and provoked Applicant No.1 to
divorce Ms. Harshal. On the fateful day of 28 th May 2023, Applicant No.1
and his aunt phoned Ms. Harshal and told her that they were coming to the
house to collect the Applicant No.1's belongings as he was going to divorce
her and intended not to continue cohabitation with her. This phone call
was made at 4:30 p.m. At 5:45 pm., the aunt telephoned Respondent No.2
and informed him that Ms. Harshal had locked herself in the room and
committed suicide. Even thereafter, the Applicants continued to berate and
abuse Ms. Harshal. The Respondent No.2 thus filed the present F.I.R..
4) Mr. Pratik Puri, learned counsel appeared for the Applicants
and Mr. S. B. Tiwari, appeared for the Respondent No.2. Mr. A. S.
Shalgaonkar, learned APP represents the State.
5) Mr. Puri submitted that firstly, the Applicant No.1 and the
deceased were living separately for three months prior to the incident and
hence the allegations are substanceless; secondly, there is a delay of twenty
days in filing the F.I.R.; thirdly, there was no demand of money or any ill-
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 3/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
treatment by the Applicants and there was no proximity between the
alleged acts of harassment and commission of suicide, and lastly, no case
was made out to justify prosecuting the Applicants.
6) Mr. Tiwari vehemently opposed the Petition and pointed to
specific allegations made by Respondent No.2 in the F.I.R. He contends that
the grounds set out in the Application are not sufficient to justify quashing
of the case and the allegations in the F.I.R. are serious enough to require
complete investigation and trial. He also submitted that since the deceased
committed suicide within two years of marriage there is a presumption of
Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act to justify prosecution. He thus prays
that the Petition be dismissed.
7) Mr. Shalgaonkar supported the contentions of Mr. Tiwari.
8) We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and perused
the record with their assistance. A plain but careful reading of the F.I.R.
makes it evident that Ms. Harshal was treated with utmost mental and
physical cruelty by the Applicants. She reported this cruelty to her parents,
however the parents requested her to adjust with the family members of her
husband since she was a newly wed bride. They also told her that these
may be teething problems and gradually they will bond as a family and
things will get better. However, the ill-treatment continued unabated. Even
when the Applicant No.1 and Ms. Harshal shifted to Bangalore, there were
extreme abuses and insults to Ms. Harshal. The Applicant No.1 abused her
in a drunken state. After shifting to Pune again, he always threatened to
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 4/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
divorce her. Ms. Harshal was at her tether's end and was completely
frustrated. She repeatedly confided her plight to her parents.
9) The F.I.R. also indicates that there was a close proximity
between the time of threat of divorce by Applicants followed by heated
arguments and the commission of suicide by Ms. Harshal. Thus, there is a
specific role attributed to the Applicants herein in the F.I.R. Admittedly,
investigation is not complete as yet. There is also a presumption against
these Applicants since the death of Ms. Harshal took place within two years
of the marriage and under suspect conditions.
10) Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an
offence. Section 107 of the IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing,
reads thus:
"Section 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
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 -- 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."
(underline supplied)
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 5/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
11) In the facts of this case, second and third category in Section
107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
12) The Supreme court in the matter of Mohit Singhal v. State of
Uttarakhand & Ors.1 held that to attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to
commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mensrea to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity
that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he
or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in
close proximity to the act of committing suicide.
13) In the present case, it is evident from the contents of the F.I.R.
that the Applicants were deliberately and intentionally harassing the
deceased daughter of the Respondent No.2 namely Ms. Harshal to such an
extent that she was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. Section
113-B of the Indian Evidence Act also deals with presumption of dowry
death. There is a clear allegation in the F.I.R. that there were demands for
transfer of the flat of the Respondent No.2 in the name of the Applicant
No.1. When Ms. Harshal was unable to fulfill the said demand, she was
further harassed. Even when she bought clothes for herself, she was told to
bring money from her parents. It is thus clear that soon before her death,
Ms. Harshal was subjected to such cruelty and harassment per-se and also
in connection with demand for dowry in the form of the flat, thus raising
1 2023 INSC 1035.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 6/7 :::
rdg 03-apl-1092-2023-J.doc
the presumption that the Applicants were responsible for Ms. Harshal
taking the extreme step of ending her life. The abuses of the Applicant
No.1 and his threat of divorce coupled with his express act of telephoning
her and telling her that he is coming to take away his belongings as he does
not intend to cohabit with her is in direct and close proximity with the
commission of suicide. It is the point when the deceased decided to take
extreme step of ending her life. The defenses raised by the Applicants
cannot be tested at this stage in an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
14) Therefore, in our considered view, the offences alleged against
the appellants are prima facie disclosed in the F.I.R. The continuation of
their prosecution will not be an abuse of the process of law. In this view of
the matter, we are not inclined to quash the F.I.R.
14.1) The Petition is dismissed.
14.2) Rule is accordingly discharged.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.10.07
19:26:04
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2024 7/7 :::
