1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.288/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO.288/2010 Dr.Datta s/o Maruti Dhanve - Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.H.F.Pawar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SB Pulkundwar, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. 2) Petitioner seeks to quash Sessions Case No.53/2010 (old Sessions Case No.79/2010), pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded; and also seeks to set a side the order dated 24.11.2010, whereby discharge application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 3) The petitioner is a District Maleria Officer at Nanded and he was involved in processing the applications moved by job-seekers on compassionate ground. Deceased – Prakash 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.288/2010 claimed s such compassionate appointment in place of his father, who expired before 5/7 years of the incident. Since other persons in the que along with deceased Prakash, were entertained by the accused in issuing appointment letters and since said Prakash was left behind, consequently he committed suicide on 10.9.2009 at Bember, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. A.D.Enquiry No.28/2009 was initiated and thereafter after about seven weeks on 3.11.2009, F.I.R. against the petitioner came to be filed by mother of the deceased, alleging that the Petitioner/accused, as Officer Incharge claimed bribe of Rs.40,000/- to issue appointment order and since such demand could not be complied, the deceased became frustrated and committed suicide. 4) Mr.Pawar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, claims that no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner/accused, as he had no authority to issue appointment order/letter and secondly, the application of the deceased was incomplete and, therefore, it could not be processed. Learned Counsel has again harped on the statement recorded in A.D.Enquiry No.28/2009 to claim that after seven weeks, the contentions of abeting suicide of the deceased are hurled against the petitioner/accused with ill-motives. The petitioner has remote concern with the 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.288/2010 deceased committing suicide. 5) Reliance was placed to the judgment of the Apex court and last such judgment in the matter of M.Mohan Vs. State TR. Dy.Superintend of Police (2011 STD WEB 204 SC dated 1 st March, 2011). The said matter was relating to the wife committing suicide and several relations of the husband were prosecuted for the offence under Section 306 and other provisions of IPC. The learned Judge in the said proceeding discharged those applicants in terms of Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC, however, did not discharge for offence under Section 306 of IPC, which was subject of challenge before the Apex court. 6) The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 37 inform what is definition of `abetment of suicide', what was law relating to `abetment of a thing' in terms of Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The Apex court also considered the judgment reported in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , in which, the process of instigation was also discussed. It is said, instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used 4 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.288/2010 to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. It was also said, "A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 7) The present case does not revolve to above situation. In the present case, the Petitioner/accused, as a responsible officer, was not expected to make illegal demand of gratification and non-compliance thereof in time has resulted in sitting over the appointment order on compassionate ground in spite of specific directions of Collector to issue orders to deceased within 2 days. The frustration in the mind of deceased was writ-large, having seen that the persons in identical situation received appointment orders from the Petitioner/accused, however, the case of the deceased was prima facie, deliberately left behind. 8) The document, to which reference is tried to be given by Mr.Pawar, cannot be considered at this stage. One of the document, giving reference to the correspondence of 2009, has adverse impact as interpolation is effected to suit purpose of the Petitioner/accused. Whatever set of documents the Petitioner had 5 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.288/2010 desired to tender as a defence, shall be considered at appropriate place. At this stage, they would not accelerate defence. 9) The inaction and slackness, which was prima facie deliberate on the part of the Petitioner/accused led the deceased to end his precious life, as he could not allegely comply the illegal gratification. In the sitaution, the non-mention of any specific demand in the A.D. Enquiry Statement by itself will not frustrate the quality of the FIR. There cannot be expectation of iron-clad details to record all the events. F.I.R. is not expected to be a thesis of events in minute details. The petition lacks merit, dismissed. The observations are restricted to the present proceedings. 10) Since Mr.Pawar, on instructions, desires to challenge the order, stay granted to the proceedings in favour of the Petitioner/accused is extended up to 31st July, 2011. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/