Bombay High Court
Avinash Balwant Jadhav And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1502-DB
1
1205.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1205 OF 2023
1. Avinash S/o Balwant Jadhav
Age : 33 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
2. Subhabai W/o Balwant Jadhav
Age : 60 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
3. Balwant S/o Sakru Jadhav
Age : 65 years, occ : Agri.,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
4. Pralhad S/o Balwant Jadhav
Age : 38 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
5. Asha @ Kantabai W/o Pralhad Jadhav
Age : 34 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
6. Sangita W/o Vinod Rathod
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Burkulwadi, Tq. Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Vasant S/o Ramu Rathod
Age : 55 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Pangri Tanda,
Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.
..RESPONDENTS
2
1205.2023APPLN.odt
...
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2025024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. The present criminal application is filed in order to
challenge F.I.R. No.70/2022 registered with Islapur Police Station,
Dist.Nanded on 02.07.2022, for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)
as well as Charge-Sheet No.32/2022 and Sessions Case No.4/2023
pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded.
2. Respondent No.2 - informant is father of deceased
Priyankabai, who committed suicide on 01.07.2022. The deceased was
wife of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and
father-in-law respectively of deceased. Applicant No.4 is brother-in-law
of the deceased and applicant No.5 is her wife. Applicant No.6 is
sister-in-law of the deceased.
3. The marriage of deceased Priyankabai was solemnized
with applicant No.1 somewhere around the year 2007. The couple was
1205.2023APPLN.odt
blessed with two sons from the marriage. Applicant No.1, his wife
deceased Priyankabai and two sons were residing separately from rest
of the family members i.e. applicant Nos.2 to 6.
4. The allegation levelled by respondent No.2 in F.I.R. is that
applicant No.1 was not doing any work and was addicted to liquor. It is
stated that the deceased was sole bread earner of nuclear family of
applicant No.1. Respondent No.2 has alleged that in order to meet
expenses for his vices, applicant No.1 used to take money from
respondent No.2 and often he used to abuse and beat her in order to
extract money from her. He alleges that time and again, he and his well
wishers had tried to sort out the situation with applicant no.1, but all
efforts went in vain. As regards applicant Nos.2 to 6, the allegation
levelled is that respondent No.2 along with his relatives had visited the
house of applicant Nos.2 to 6 in order to seek their intervention for
resolving the issue between applicant No.1 and the deceased, however,
applicant Nos.2 to 6 sided with applicant No.1 and levelled some
counter allegations against the deceased. Respondent No.2 states that
on 01.07.2022 at about 4.00 p.m., he had received a call from Police
Patil of Village Burkulwadi informing that his daughter deceased
Priyankabai had committed suicide by hanging herself. In this
backdrop, he has lodged F.I.R. against the applicants as aforesaid on
1205.2023APPLN.odt
02.07.2022 alleging that they were responsible for drastic act of suicide
committed by his daughter.
5. After hearing learned counsel Mr. Vikram Dhorde for the
applicants and learned APP Mr. G.A.Kulkarni for respondent No.1 and
on initial assessment of facts during the course of hearing, we had
expressed that we may not be inclined to allow the application qua
applicant No.1- husband. On this the learned counsel for the applicants
sought instructions and made a oral motion requesting to withdraw the
application with respect to applicant No.1. We permitted him to
withdraw the application with respect to applicant No.1 and
accordingly, the present application stands disposed of with respect to
applicant No.1.
6. As regards the case of applicant Nos.2 to 6, applicant Nos.2
and 3 are the parents-in-law of deceased, applicant No.4 is the brother-
in-law of the deceased and applicant No.5 is wife of applicant No.4. It is
stated in the F.I.R. itself that applicant Nos.2 to 6 were residing separate
from applicant No.1 and his nuclear family comprising of deceased and
their two children. Likewise, applicant No.6, who is sister-in-law of
deceased is married to one Vinod Rathod and she is also residing
separate at her matrimonial home. Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that
1205.2023APPLN.odt
there are no allegations against applicant Nos.2 to 6 except a statement
that when respondent No.2 - informant and his family members
approached applicant Nos.2 to 6 seeking their help and intervention to
resolve the matter between applicant No.1 and his deceased wife, they
did not extend any co-operation and rather levelled allegations against
the deceased herself taking sides with applicant No.1. Respondent No.2
is of the opinion that applicant Nos.2 to 6 did not discharge their
responsibilities as members of the family, which ultimately resulted in a
drastic action on the part of his daughter in ending her life by
committing suicide.
7. Having considered the material on record, which forms a
part of the charge-sheet, particularly statements of respondent No.2
and family members as also the contents of F.I.R., we find that no
positive overt act is attributed to applicant Nos.2 to 6. All the
allegations of harassment and illtreatment are against applicant No.1
alone. Perusal of the record does not demonstrate even shred of
material to connect applicant Nos.2 to 6 with the offence alleged. We
may refer a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter
of Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 3741. Referring to several judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point as also earlier decisions of
1205.2023APPLN.odt
this Court, it is held that in order to make out a case of abetment to
commit suicide, the material on record must indicate mens rea in the
form of clear intention on the part of the accused to commit acts in
order to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It is further held that
mere allegation of harassment is not enough to attract Section 306 of
IPC. This Court has recently taken a similar view in the matter of
Uddhav Bhaurao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal
Application No. 1067 of 2023, decided on 09.12.2024). It is held in the
said judgment that abetment of suicide involves a mental process of the
accused instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person to commit
suicide. A positive act on the part of the accused indicating instigation
or aiding the act of suicide is essential. The act on the part of the
accused should be such that the deceased must find himself in a
situation where he is left with no option, but to bring an end to his life.
The said judgment in Uddhav Bhaurao Shinde (supra) also refers to
several decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India on the point.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion
that the contents of the F.I.R., statements of witnesses and other
material gathered during the course of investigation and forming part
of charge-sheet are insufficient to make out essential ingredients of
1205.2023APPLN.odt
Section 306 of the IPC against applicant Nos.2 to 6.
9. As regards section 498-A of the IPC, there is no allegation
with respect to demand of dowry or harassment on that count against
applicant Nos.2 to 6. Apart from this, there are no allegations of cruelty
on any other count also within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC
against applicant Nos.2 to 6. Therefore, they can not be prosecuted for
the offence under Section 498-A also. Other provision, viz:- Section
506 of the IPC is non-cognizable. We may also note that there is no
whisper in the FIR and no shred of evidence in the charge-sheet to
invoke Section 34 of the IPC in order to connect applicant Nos.2 to 6
with applicant No.1 qua the allegations against him pertaining to
Section 306 and Section 498-A of the IPC.
10 It will, therefore, be unjust to force applicant Nos.2 to 6 to
face criminal prosecution for the said offence. In view of the reasons
aforesaid, we allow the criminal application with respect to applicant
Nos.2 to 6 by passing following order :-
ORDER
(i) The application stands disposed of with respect of applicant No.1
- Avinash Balwant Jadhav as withdrawn.
1205.2023APPLN.odt
(ii) The application stands allowed with respect of the applicant
Nos.2 to 6.
(iii) F.I.R. No.70/2022 registered with Islapur Police Station,
Dist.Nanded on 02.07.2022, for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 306, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Charge-Sheet No.32/2022 and Sessions Case No.4/2023 pending on
the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded are hereby
quashed against applicant No.2 - Subhabai W/o Balwant Jadhav,
applicant No.3 - Balwant S/o Sakru Jadhav, applicant No.4 - Pralhad
S/o Balwant Jadhav, applicant No.5 - Asha @ Kantabai W/o Pralhad
Jadhav and applicant No.6 - Sangita W/o Vinod Rathod.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
