1 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2010 1. Ajay S/o.Vinayakrao Sonarikar, Age-41 years, Occu-Service, R/o.H.D.F.C. Bank, Aurangabad 2. Vijay S/o.Panditrao Modi, Age-31 years, Occu-Service, R/o.N-5- Cidco, Aurangabad 3. Bhikan S/o.Bhagwatrao Gaikwad, Age-29 years, Occu-Service, R/o,Mhada Colony, Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Ranjanabai W/o.Rangnath Mahapure, Age-Major, Occu-Household, R/o. Tisgaon Mhada Colony, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.G.Ladda, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present revision application, the applicants have questioned the correctness and legality of the order, rejecting their application for discharge u/s. 227 of The Cr.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide order below Exh.18 dated 27/07/2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel for original complainant. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this criminal revision can be summarized as follows : A) On 21/02/2008, Rangnath Mahapure, deceased was admitted in Ghati Hospital by one Laxman Jagannath, as he was found in un-concious condition. After his admission in the Ghati Hospital, MLC No.4145/2008 was communicated to P.I. M.I.D.C. Walunj Police Station, Aurangabad, and accordingly AD was registered. On his examination by the concerned Medical Officer, he is reported to be dead. On the complaint lodged on 22/02/2008 in MIDC Walunj Police Station, an offence came to be registered vide CR No.49/2008. The said complaint was lodged by Ranjana, the wife of the deceased. Offence came to be registered u/s. 306 r/w. 34 of The IPC. It is alleged in the said complaint that deceased husband of the complainant had obtained loan from H.D.F.C. Bank, Akashwani 3 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 Branch, Aurangabad for purchase of motor-cycle. An agreement of hypothecation came to be executed with the bank at the time of sanction of loan and purchase of vehicle. The amount of loan to be repaid in installments. It is alleged in the said complaint that only one installment of loan was paid and 4 installments were due. It is further alleged that a day prior to 20/02/2008, Vinod Kale, Finance Recovery Officer of H.D.F.C. Bank had been to the residence of complainant to call late husband of the complainant. Accordingly, her husband had been to the bank where his vehicle was retained/seized by the bank officials. Even the deceased requested with all means, but the bank officials refused to return the vehicle of the deceased and directed the deceased to pay the entire due amount of loan and then to take back his seized vehicle. In the evening, husband of the complainant deceased Rangnath returned home and reported the incident to her wife. On the next day, deceased collected Rs.100/- from the complainant and told her that he is gong to visit the bank officials. In the evening, message was received that the deceased was found lying near Bombay Highway in un-concious condition, from where he was taken to Ghati Hospital, and declared dead. According to her, because of the harassment at the hands of bank officials, her husband had committed suicide, hence prosecution was started against the applicants. After completion of investigation, and after recording statements of certain witnesses, charge sheet was filed. On committal of the trial to the Court of Sessions, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.97/2009 and at the time of framing of charge, an application was moved for 4 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 discharge u/s. 227 of The Cr.P.C. As the application for discharge was rejected by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 27/07/2010, which is impugned in this revision, the applicants are before this Court. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel for applicants so also learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for original complainant took me through the entire record. It is not under dispute that the deceased had obtained loan for purchase of motor-cycle from H.D.F.C. Bank. It is also not under dispute that the agreed installments of 4 months were due. It is also not under dispute that the deceased was not in a position to repay the agreed installments of the bank loan obtained from the H.D.F.C. Bank. It is further not under dispute that the death of the deceased is un- natural death. The only question require consideration in this revision is that whether the material on record is sufficient to hold that there was abetment at the hands of bank officials to commit suicide as contemplated u/s. 107 of The IPC to constitute an offence u/s. 306 of The IPC, i.e. abetment to commit suicide. 6. Perusal of the entire record only indicates that the day prior to the incident took place on 20/02/2008, the deceased was called in the bank, his motor cycle was seized and he was informed to take back the motor-cycle on payment of the entire due amount. It is urged that even though the deceased beg for mercy, the bank officers are not ready to return his vehicle, which amounts to his humiliation, 5 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 and it resulted in committal of suicide. Learned counsel for complainant urged before this Court that he was man-handled in the bank at the time of seizure of his vehicle. 7. Perusal of the papers of investigation reveal that because of seizure of motor cycle of the deceased, he might have feel insulting, which resulted in committal of suicide. The question arose, if the deceased has taken loan from the bank to purchase the motor-cycle, if he has agreed to repay the loan amount in installments, and if he is unable to repay the amount, and as per the terms of hypothecation agreement, his vehicle was taken back by the Bank, whether it amounts to abetment/instigation to commit suicide as contemplated u/s. 107 of The IPC, to which answer is in negative. If the deceased had any grievance with the action of the bank officials, as admittedly he has taken the loan and has not repaid it and because of that his vehicle was taken back by the bank officials, remedies were available for him. However, he has taken decision to commit suicide, for which he only himself was liable and not the bank officials. If such tendency is boosted by allowing such type of allegations, then there are possibilities to increase the tendency of taking loan and not to repay it, and if demanded the due loan amount by the bank officials, then to commit suicide, by the way the officer would suffer. In law, if the loan is given, it is the right of the bank to take the necessary steps to recover it, and it certainly will not amount to an offence of abetment to commit suicide. Perusal of the papers of investigation nowhere project that because of this demand, life of the deceased 6 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.270 of 2010 became miserable and due to that harassment, he has committed suicide. In absence of such investigation, it can not be said that these applicants are liable for the death of deceased. Considering this aspect, the finding recorded by the learned Lower Court, particularly in para no.6, wherein it is observed that there was no option in the hands of Mahapure within 1 ½ years his motor cycle was seized by the bank though he had paid the installments regularly except 2-3 installments. The conduct of the accused certainly prima facie is sufficient to frame charge of abetment of suicide, is erroneous findings, and is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. In substance, revision application succeeds. The order passed below Exh.18 is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants are discharged in Sessions Case No.97/2009. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. No costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.270-10