1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2009 1) Ramkrishna s/o Shankarrao Sarap, aged about 69 years, Occupation – Retired Headmaster, R/o “Dnyaneshwar Krupa”, Wadgaon, Police Station Wadgaon, Tq. Balapur, District Akola. 2) Ganesh s/o Jairamji Borkar, aged about 51 years, Occupation – Teacher, R/o Ashraya Nagar, Dabki Road, Police Station Old City, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola. 3) Pradip s/o Bhikaji Tale, Aged about 40 years, Occupation – Service, R/o Saraswati Nagar, Dabki Road, Police Station Old City, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola. 4) Manohar s/o Purnaji Harane, Aged about 63 years, Occupation – Retired Agriculture Officer, R/o “Adhar”, Near Khemka Mansion, Gorakshan Road, Akola, Police Station Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola. Nos. 1 to 4 are the original accused Nos. 2 to 5 in crime (F.I.R.) No.56/2007, registered by the P. S.O., Yeoda, Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati ( as well as in S.T. No.16/2008, on the file of Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Achalpur). -- Petitioners -Versus- 1) State of Maharashtra, through the P.S.O., Yeoda, Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati. 2) Devidas s/o Narayanrao Kokate, aged about 51 years, Occ.-Cultivator, R/o Chaudhari pura, Tq.Daryapur, District – Amravati. -- Respondents 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.M. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent/State CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 18th AUGUST, 2009. P.C :- 1. The petitioners are facing trial in the Court of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Case No.16/2008 under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed discharge application before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, which came to be rejected by order dated 14th July, 2008. Against that order this petition is filed. 2. I have extensively heard learned Advocate for the petitioners at the stage of admission. I have acquainted myself with the facts of case and I have perused the record. The petitioners happened to be near relatives of the husband of the deceased girl by name Smita. The petitioner No.2 happens to be the father-in-law and other persons are near relatives. It is seen on the basis of the F.I.R. that the husband was insisting a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- should be paid to the husband so that divorce can be given to the said girl Smita. In the F.I.R. there is a positive reference that in the March 2007 at Yeoda the husband, petitioner No.2, then petitioner No.3, then petitioner No. 3 4 called the father of Smita and there the husband demanded Rs.25,00,000/- and said that if Rs.25,00,000/- are paid, divorce will be given and none of these aforesaid persons objected to it. Thereafter there is a reference in the F.I.R. by which it is observed that on 16th April, 2007 at the house of Ganesh Borkar-petitioner No.2 at Akola a meeting was called concerning the subject matter of the meeting of March, 2007 and again all the petitioners supported the demand of the husband of Smita as regards the demand of Rs. 25,00,000/- for giving divorce. This is the main allegation against the petitioners concerning charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that this stand of the complainant-father of Smita is something new because Smita in her notice issued in the year 2006 had generally referred to the demand. The learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that even if the F.I.R. is perused as it is no case made out against the near relatives namely, petitioners for a charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and according to him, learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge erred in that behalf. He further submitted that the suicide was committed by Smita in June, 2007 and therefore, there is no nexus between overt acts alleged against the petitioners and the said suicide. Therefore, no case is made out for a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the F.I.R. should be quashed in that behalf or that the petitioners should be discharged. 4 4. I have considered the record. In my view, the F.I.R. filed by the father of Smita concerning the events which took place in March 2007 as well as in April 2007 regarding demand of Rs.25,00,000/- are clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioners are the party to the meeting as regard the demand of Rs.25,00,000/-. To that extent a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi that the petitioners were merely present at the said meeting and therefore, they are not responsible. It cannot be held that they have practiced cruelty upon Smita, cannot be accepted. The presence of the petitioners in April 2007 was for a specific meeting and therefore, the petitioners are said to have supported the husband of Smita and persisted in demanding Rs.25,00,000/-. To that extent prima-facie case is made out. 5. The argument advanced by Mr. Joshi that no case is made out against the petitioners for a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted. The main ground for Smita to commit suicide appears to be a demand of a substantial amount of Rs.25,00,000/- when Smita was conscious of the fact that her father would not be able to comply with the said demand. In any case it will not be proper for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that overt acts alleged against the petitioners did not amount to abatement to commit suicide. The entire material will have to be read as a whole and it will have to be looked into. 5 6. In view of this, the petition is required to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed. i) The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ii) It is clarified that observations made in this order shall not be used by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for the purposes of framing of charge. It will be necessary for the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur to consider the entire charge sheet, consider the overt acts and then frame appropriate charge under particular section against a particular accused. It will open for the petitioners to advance argument before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur that charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code need not be framed against them. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi prayed for early trial. The petitioners are free to file application for early trial to the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur who shall consider the said application on the basis of work load before him and if he is otherwise free, he shall take up trial expeditiously. JUDGE adgokar