1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2927 OF 2009 Mrs. Chetnaben Jatinbhai Solanki. ... Applicant. V/s. Union Territory of Daman & Diu & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. R.S. Desai i/b. Kunal Bhanage for the Applicant. Ms. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr. D.A. Nalawade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 20th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Application is to quash Criminal proceedings being a complaint made on 4th November 2008 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daman. 2. The Complainant has alleged that the present Applicant and her brother Rajeshkumar Nagindas Vediya are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. 3. The Complainant’s daughter had married the brother of the Applicant. The Complainant is residing at Daman alongwith his family. The daughter of the Complainant had been firstly married with one Bhupesh Mahyavanshi. She got a daughter from the marriage with Bhupesh. The said Bhupesh expired on 11th March 2004. The daughter was, therefore, residing with the Complainant alongwith his grand- daughter Jinali. 2 4. Thereafter, the said daughter got married to the brother of the present Applicant, Rajeshkumar, on 3rd August 2007. Before the marriage of the daughter with the said Rajeshkumar, he had been residing in Germany. He had given an advertisement in Gujarati Daily Newspaper ‘Gujarat Samachar’ and pursuant to the said advertisement, the Complainant who also belongs to Mahyavanshi community established contact as the said Rajeshkumar also belongs to same community and thereafter, the said marriage was solemnized and performed. It is alleged that said Rajeshkumar had agreed that he would accept the daughter from the first marriage. It was agreed that for some time, the daughter would remain with the Complainant and will visit her mother during vacation. 5. The couple cohabited till Rajesh Kumar went back to Germany. It is alleged that it was agreed that the daughter and grand daughter of the Complainant would reside at Daman and keep on visiting the father in law, who was residing at Surat. The present Applicant is the married sister of Rajeshkumar, who is residing at Surat alongwith her family. It is alleged in the complaint that after the marriage, arrangements were sought to be made so that the daughter of the Complainant who married Rajeshkumar joins him in Germany. The Pass-port had been issued in that behalf and an application was thereafter preferred to obtain German Visa. However, before applying for Visa, the wife of Rajeshkumar 3 and daughter of the Complainant was required to learn German language. However, before the departure to Germany could materialize, the present Applicant is alleged to have pressurise the deceased Harshila to permanently leave the Complainant and his family and come to reside with them at Surat. 6. The Complainant alleges that as agreed earlier, the deceased had to reside in Daman till she goes to Germany. However, the Applicant did not agree and insisted for shifting of the residence of the deceased. Even the husband then instructed the deceased to go to Surat and join his family. Thus, instead of the deceased joining her husband at Germany, it is alleged that she was directed to reside at Surat. This was under a false pretext that the father in law of the deceased had health problem. The complainant alleges that there was no health problem and the entire plan of the present Applicant was that the deceased will not alone go to Germany but in place of the daughter of the deceased, she will have to carry the daughter of the present Applicant to Germany, Thus, the deceased should not be carrying her own daughter to Germany and joining her husband there but must carry the daughter of the sister in law. This is how the complaint alleges pressure and force and continued trauma for the deceased. The deceased was stated to be in stress and tension. She was traumatized on account of this pressure exerted on her. The deceased had, under such circumstances, gone to Daman. However, it is the Applicant, who is stated to 4 have got in touch with her brother Rajesh (husband of the deceased) in Germany and she instigated him. This is how the complaint reads. Thereafter, the complainant has pointed out as to how this pressure and continued stress led to the death of the deceased. Thus, he specifically alleges that the continued threat and pressure exerted on the deceased by her husband and sister in law led to her suicidal death. The complaint attributes a specific role to both, husband and sister-in-law 7. The complaint read as a whole alleges specific role of the Applicants in the acts complained of. It is not possible to agree with Mr. Desai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant that the Applicant has been roped in merely because she is the sister in law of the deceased. The Applicant has been attributed a specific role and it is not possible to conclude at this stage that the Complaint/FIR discloses no offence as against the present Applicant. 8. Reliance placed by Mr. Desai on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 (Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P.) is misplaced. 9. There, the Appellant before the Supreme Court was charged with abetting commission of suicide by his brother in law. The brother had married the Appellant’s sister and the prosecution story was there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife, who at the material time stayed 5 with the Appellant. On 25th July 1998, the deceased went to the Appellant to bring back his wife. There was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased who came back alone. The deceased told his brother of the incident and alleged that the Appellant threatened him in filthy words. On 27th July 1998, the deceased was found dead. The suicide note showed his disturbed state of mind. There was a concurrent finding that the prosecution story was accepted and the suicide had taken place on 25th July 1998. It is alleged that the Appellant before the Supreme Court had used abusive language. 10. It is, in these facts and circumstances and finding that all that has been alleged against the Appellant before the Supreme Court was that the Appellant is stated to have told the deceased to “go and die”. That itself without anything more does not constitute the ingredients of instigation to commit suicide. It is in these circumstances and in peculiar facts so also considering the suicide note that the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings. 11. I do not see how this decision is of any assistance to the present Applicant. The Applicant has argued the matter on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. The complaint read as a whole alleges specific act as far as the Applicant is concerned. It is not possible to conclude at this prima-facie stage that the complaint does not disclose any offence as against her. The suicide note is something which is bound to 6 be produced during the course of the proceedings before the Criminal Court. The Applicant will have ample opportunity to prove her innocence. It is not as if this Court has accepted the prosecution case. Today, at this prima-facie stage it will not be possible to agree with the Applicant that the complaint requires to be quashed. More so, when it alleges a specific role as far as the Applicant is concerned. The Application is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)