NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT versus VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR. on 28 November 2018

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated28.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, NagpurBench at Nagpur allowing Criminal Application No.380 of 2015 preferredby the first respondent and thereby quashing the proceedings institutedagainst him vide FIR No.35/2015.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. The aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 was lodged with Police Station,Washim on 14.02.2015 pursuant to information received from theappellant. It was alleged that the son and daughter-in-law of the appellantwere teachers in a village in a Zila Parishad School where the firstrespondent was also a teacher; the first respondent used to call on themobile of the daughter-in-law of the appellant and used to harass her;Bthat despite the efforts of the son of the appellant in trying to make thefirst respondent see reason and stop calling said daughter-in-law, thefirst respondent continued calling her repeatedly; that on 09.02.2015there was a verbal altercation between said son and the first respondentand that on 12.02.2015 said son committed suicide leaving a suicideCnote. True translation of said suicide note is to the following effect:

“Sir Police Station Officer, I humbly request that my familylife has been ruined by Vinayak Bhagat & therefore heshould not be pardoned this is humble request & he shouldbe hanged till death this is my last wish”

D

4. After the crime was registered, the first respondent hadpreferred an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by thePrincipal District & Sessions Judge, Washim on 21.02.2015. The matterwas carried further by filing Criminal Application [ABA]No.96 of 2015in the High Court. The prayer was rejected by the High Court videEorder dated 07.04.2015. It was observed by the High Court:

“… … …After hearing the learned counsel for the applicantand the learned APP for the State and on the backdrop of theirsubmissions, I have gone through the material placed on recordas well as presented for my perusal by the learned APP. Though,Fit was an attempt of the learned counsel for the applicant that thealleged material against the applicant of committing mischief isonly a piece of paper i.e. so-called suicide note. The submissionwas, merely on the basis of this material, one cannot reach to aconclusion of either intention or abatement for attracting Section306 of IPC. On a perusal of the report, it clearly reveals that itGwas not only a casual or occasional attempt of the applicant or afriendly association of the applicant with his colleague. The reportitself states that the applicant was constantly establishing contacton mobile phone with the wife of the victim. The report statesthat the attempt was made to give an understanding to the applicantHasking him to keep himself away from such activity. But in spiteof such an attempt, the applicant neither paid any heed nor stopped G

H

his activities. The statements recorded by the investigating agencyof the father and mother of the victim Sanjay clearly indicate thatthough, initially the relations between the couple and the applicantwere homely and informal, the applicant started calling the wifeof Sanjay constantly. Just 3-4 days earlier to the death of Sanjay,the applicant, who had been to the grocery shop of one AnandKale, was given an understanding by Sanjay and in spite ofgrievance raised by Sanjay, the applicant was giving phone callsto the wife of Sanjay. Sanjay was thus carrying mental pressureand depression. These facts are recorded in the statement of themother of Sanjay. It will also be interesting to note what revealsfrom the statement of the wife of Sanjay. The wife of Sanjay inclear and unambiguous words stated that the applicant wascontinuously calling her in spite of the understanding given by herhusband as well as by herself.”

5. The view taken by the High Court as aforesaid was challengedby filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3497 of 2015 but this Courtrejected the challenge on 29.04.2015 finding no merit in the Special LeavePetition.

6. The first respondent, thereafter, filed Criminal ApplicationNo.380 of 2015 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seekingquashing of the aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 registered pursuant to thereporting by the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 306IPC. By way of interim relief, stay of further proceedings in connectionwith the Crime was also sought. It is a matter of record, that theinvestigation in the Crime has not been concluded.

7. The challenge raised by the first respondent was accepted bythe High Court. After referring to the facts that the first respondentused to call on the mobile of the daughter-in-law and that there wereheated arguments between the son of the appellant and the firstrespondent, the High Court observed as under:

“The aforesaid indicates that there is no material whatsoevereven of a prima facie nature to establish that the applicant hadeither an intention to aid or instigate or abet Sanjay to commitsuicide. There is no reference to any active or direct act on thepart of the applicant which led said Sanjay to commit suicide.Similarly, there is neither any instigation nor any intentional actdone which compelled the son of non-applicant no.2 to commit AB

C

D

E

F

GH

Asuicide. Even the chit found in the pocket of the deceased doesnot contain any such material to indicate any instigation or abetmenton the part of the applicant herein that could be treated as havingled Sanjay to commit suicide.”

The decision of the High Court and the order quashing the FIR isBpresently under challenge.

8. We heard Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate for the appellant,Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, Advocate for the respondent and Mr. NishantRamakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the State.

9. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High CourtCwas not justified in entering into questions whether the record primafacie established that the respondent had requisite intention in order tobring the matter within the confines of Section 306 IPC and in quashingthe FIR in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On theother hand, the learned counsel appearing for first respondent reliedDupon decisions of this Court in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.[1]; M.Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police[2]and; State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair andOthers.[3] in support of his submission that in exercise of jurisdiction underSection 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR.

E10. In Netai Dutta (supra) the suicide note had alleged that NetaiDutta had engaged the victim in several wrong doings; that the victimwas required to be at the workplace during the day and night on certainoccasions; and that though he had reported the fact that he could leavethe workplace only by 8 o’ clock in the evening when all the restaurantswere closed nothing was done by said Netai Dutta. It was in the backdropFof these facts that this Court found the case to be fit to exercise powersunder Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. In M. Mohan (supra) A-3 was stated to have told Kamatchi(victim) that “if you want to go by a car, you have to bring a car fromyour family”, whereupon said Kamatchi, her husband and the child wereGrequired to take public transport. Few days thereafter the victimcommitted suicide. After filing of the charge-sheet A-3 was summonedunder Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC. In proceedings under Section482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the charges under Sections 498Aand 304B IPC but held that the accused had to face trial for the offence1 (2005)2 SCC 659H2 (2011)3 SCC 6263 (2015)9 SCC 639

under Section 306 IPC, which view was under challenge before thisCourt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court madefollowing observations in paragraphs 48 and 49:

“48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation,there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is alsono proximate link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when thedeceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with thefactum of suicide which had taken place on 18-1-2005.Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. Thedeceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In ajoint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Humansensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Eachindividual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.Different people behave differently in the same situation. It isunfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in thefamily. But the question that remains to be answered is whetherthe appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident inany manner?

49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and thelaw, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arriveat the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotelyconnected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may berelevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the husbandof the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) are pendingadjudication.”

12. In State of Kerala and others (supra) the person whocommitted suicide was a CBI official investigating into a crime.According to the suicide note left behind by the victim, two officials ofCBI, who were in fact juniors to him, an advocate as well as ChiefJudicial Magistrate were statedly responsible for the suicide. Again,considering the facts, this Court upheld the decision of the High Court inquashing the FIR. The observations of this Court in paragraph 12 arenoteworthy. Said paragraph 12 was to the following effect:

“12. As we find from the narration of facts and the material broughton record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which formsthe fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of thesame, we have reproduced it hereinbefore. On a plain reading ofthe same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aby the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondentscompelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him indeep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferiorin rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. Thatapart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for theDepartment had made him the head of the investigating team andBthe High Court had reposed complete faith in him and grantedhim the liberty to move the Court, in such a situation, there was nowarrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officersbelonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blameon the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressureCon him. He has also made the allegation against the advocate.”

13. We now consider the facts of the present case. There aredefinite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling thewife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegationsare supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victimDrecorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior tothe suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the firstrespondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that thesuicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the HighCourt was not justified in entering into question whether the firstrespondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate theEcommission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yetto be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the HighCourt ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisitemental element or intention on part of the respondent.

14. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions advanced on behalfFof the appellant. The judgment and order under appeal is, therefore, setaside and the present appeal is allowed. Since the investigation into thematter was stalled as a result of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,we direct the concerned authorities to complete the investigation as earlyas possible.G15. We have not and shall not be taken up to have expressed anyopinion on the merits of the matter which shall be considered at theappropriate stage.

16. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

HDivya Pandey