1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.499 OF 2011 (Nilesh s/o Sudhakarrao Bodade ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through PSO Kalamb, District Yavatmal and another) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri M.V. Bute, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Fulzele, A.P.P. for respondent No.1, Shri Pavan Raulkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. C ORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 30-11-2011 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the present petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.82/2011, registered by respondent No.1 on 14-7-2011 under Sections 306, 354, 323, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks to quash the First Information Report lodged by the complainant alleging that his daughter Shilpa had committed suicide on account of the instigation of the present petitioner. 2. First Information Report came to be lodged on 14-7-2011 alleging that on 11-7-2011 when the complainant had questioned his daughter Shilpa, who was admitted in the hospital at Yavatmal on account of consumption of poison, as to why she had attempted to 2 commit suicide, Shilpa had replied that when she had gone to the S.T. Stand at Kalamb in an Auto Rickshaw, the present petitioner had caught her hands and pulled her and thereafter had misbehaved with her. The petitioner had also assaulted her with fist and kick blows and had threatened Shilpa that in case she disclosed this incident to anyone, the petitioner would kill her. Shilpa had also alleged that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. The petitioner had threatened Shilpa that he would disclose the relations between Amol and Shilpa in the entire village and therefore, would thus tarnish her image. Shilpa apprehended that her reputation as well as the reputation of the family would be tarnished, therefore, she had consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide by jumping in the Well. Shilpa ultimately succumbed to the consumption of poison after three days and therefore, a report came to be lodged. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that there is a delay of four days in lodging of the First Information Report and consequently the First Information Report deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. It is also urged before us that the acts complained of do not amount to instigation to commit suicide and therefore, an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also urged before us that the magnitude of the allegations against the present petitioner were not serious and would not have driven 3 Shilpa to commit suicide and there appears to be different reasons for Shilpa to have committed suicide. 4. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sonti Rama Krishna .vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another, 2009 Crimes (SC) 183. In the aforesaid judgment, the husband is alleged to have used abusive language to his wife which had made the wife to commit suicide. The Supreme Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the judgment of the High Court quashing the prosecution under Section 306 of the India Penal Code was justified in the light of the fact that there was no suicide note and also appears that words uttered under a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 5. According to us, in the light of the facts of the present case, the ratio of the case cited is inapplicable to the present case. We find that the petitioner had caught the hands of Shilpa and had threatened to kill her. The petitioner had also threatened to tarnish her reputation as well as the reputation of the family by disclosing about the illicit relations between Amol and Shilpa. Since Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been invoked and both the accused had outraged the modesty of Shilpa, according to us, prima facie an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is needless to state that the aforesaid 4 observations are made on examination of the First Information Report and should not be construed as any findings in merit. The other offences prima facie also are disclosed upon perusal of the First Information Report. The learned A.P.P. states that the investigation is virtually completed and final report in this behalf would be submitted shortly. 6. In the light of aforesaid findings, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition for quashing of the First Information Report and this petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE pma