1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.980 OF 2010 Ms.Gurprit Singh Harjinder Singh Jaggi & another Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for petitioners. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 29th June 2010 PC : 1. We have heard Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms.Deshmukh, learned APP for the State. 2. Respondent no.2 Ms.Stella John Augustin, an orphan girl was working as a maid servant with the father of petitioner no.1 Ms.Gurprit Singh Jaggi. Petitioner no.2 is the business partner of petitioner no.1. Both of them were shown as accused in an FIR filed by the respondent no.2 and registered as CR No.29 of 2010 with the N.R.I. Sagari Police Station, New Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 504 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for quashing of the FIR.. Along with the petition they also filed an affidavit of respondent no.2 supporting the prayers to quash 2 the FIR.. 3. In her affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she came along with petitioner no.1 and started residing with her. The petitioner no.1 was looking after her well like her younger sister and was providing her good quality of food as well as clothes. She further stated that she was never ill-treated by petitioner no.1 either before or after the complaint was filed. She claimed that the complaint lodged by her was on account of misunderstanding and she subsequently realized her mistake. Under these circumstances, she stated that she did not want to press her complaint and prayed for quashing of the said FIR.. 4. On 29th March 2010, respondent no.2 was present before this Court and looking at her physical appearance, this Court directed the Probation Officer to admit her to the Children's Home, Umarkhadi, Mumbai for a period of eight days with a further direction to produce her on 7th April 2010 before the Court. Directions were also issued to get done the verification of age of respondent no.2 by a medical examination. 5. On 7th April 2010, respondent no.2 was produced before this Court and the report of the Medical Board submitted by Department of Forensic Medicine, T.N.Medical College and BYL Nair Charity Hospital, Mumbai Central, Mumbai indicated that her age was between 18 and 19 years. There were no injuries on her body. Respondent no.2 expressed her desire before the Court to go with petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 3 accepted to take the respondent no.2 to her house and as a matter of precaution, the Investigating Officer Mr.Ashok Ipper, who was present in the Court, was directed to provide one lady police constable to visit the petitioners' house on second and fourth Saturday any time between 10 and 11 a.m. so as to meet respondent no.2 and submit a report to him. Such a report was directed to be forwarded by the Investigating Officer after every three months to this Court. In addition, Mr.R.R.Kulkarni, Probation Officer, Children Home, Umarkhadi, Mumbai who was present in the Court was also directed to visit the house of petitioners once in three months and meet respondent no.2 separately and submit his report accordingly in a sealed cover. 6. We are now informed that on 4th June 2010 when petitioner no.1 returned from her work, she saw respondent no.2 hanging on a ceiling fan. Respondent no.2 was dead and post mortem report indicated that she died on account of asphyxia due to hanging. From 7th April 2010 to 4th June 2010, at no point of time, any lady constable had visited the house of petitioner no.1 so as to meet respondent no.2 and submit a report to the Investigating Officer. We are informed that the Investigating Officer did not nominate any such lady police constable to visit the house of petitioner no.1. 7. In these circumstances we are satisfied that C.R.No.29 of 2010 registered against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and the investigation undertaken against the petitioners ought to be set aside. 4 Even as it is, the complainant has ended her life. The reports placed on record also indicate that she was friendly with one boy by name Meet and petitioner no.1 had arranged a meeting between respondent no2, Meet's parents and Meet himself. Meet was instructed not to contact respondent no.2 again. This might have caused depression of respondent no.2 and perhaps she ended her life. The best way now is to close the complaint registered at the behest of respondent no.2. 8. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)