Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.467 OF 2011 SANGITA HANMANTRAO MULEY VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRRA AND ANOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. R. D. Raskar Advocate for the applicant. Shri T. A. Mirza, APP for respondent State. Coram : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B. DESHMUKH,JJ. Date : 20th OCTOBER 2011. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 7-7-2011, on the basis of which offence vide Crime No.109 of 2011, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered. 2. The First Information Report discloses that a lady named in the First Information Report though was a married lady having children was continuously pressurizing the deceased to marry her. The First Information Report further discloses that the deceased had expressed his disinclination to marry. The aforesaid lady is alleged to have thereafter threatened the deceased. The deceased ultimately, Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 2 committed suicide and the suicide note is placed on record. It appears that the suicide note has also been sent to the Hand Writing Expert and the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert is awaited. 3. The learned APP upon perusal of the case diary, which has been made available for our perusal, states that the investigation is almost completed and a chargesheet is likely to be filed in the Court shortly. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the acts alleged against the applicant do not fall within any of the Clauses of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, no offence of abetment of suicide is made out. It is urged before us that the First Information Report does not even remotely contain any allegation that the accused has intended that the deceased should commit suicide or that because of provocation or instigation the deceased committed suicide. The suicide note, which has been seized by the police, does not refer to the overt acts or positive acts alleged against the present applicant and it is only mentioned about “harassment”. It is further stated that the suicide note does not contain any allegation in respect of the alleged threats given by the applicant to the deceased. Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 3 5. The applicant is alleged to have threatened the deceased that in the event deceased does not marry her, the applicant would lodge false prosecution against him or that the deceased would be killed. We have seen the statement of the brother of deceased by name Prakash. The aforesaid statement, in details, deals with the various harassment and threats which are given to the deceased. The statement also discloses that certain threats were given to the deceased that in the event he did not marry the lady, a false charge of rape would be levelled against him. It is true that the suicide note does not refer to the alleged threat. However, that is not the only evidence available against the applicant. There are other statements on record, which according to us, prima facie establishes commission of the offence. Moreover, whether the accused had the requisite intention or not can be gathered on the basis of the evidence on record namely the act of the accused as well as the nature of the threats which have been given to the deceased. Prima facie, therefore, according to us, this is not a fit case where the First Information Report can be quashed at the threshold on the ground that the allegation even if accepted on their face value do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 4 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mandakini Kiran Landge and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2010 CRI.L.J. - 4085. In this case, there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife and the learned Single Judge then came to the conclusion that the possibility of the deceased committing the suicide on account of frustration could not be ruled out. Similarly, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B., reported in AIR 2005 SC – 1775. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that the suicide note do not contain any reference to the act or incidence in the alleged suicide note whereby the accused had committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. The Supreme Court, therefore, recorded the conclusion that it could not be said that the accused had in any way instigated the deceased to commit the suicide or that the accused was responsible for the suicide of the deceased. The facts in the present case being different, the ratio laid down is not applicable. 7. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 5 Gujarat & another reported in 2010(8) SCC – 628. In this case, the driver of the accused had committed suicide feeling wronged by the accused. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment, therefore, came to the conclusion that the suicide note does not spell out any intention on the part of the accused either to instigate or to intentionally aid the commission of the suicide. In the present case, apart from the averments in the First Information Report or the suicide note, the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and which, according to us, at the prima facie stage of examination of the allegation certainly disclose the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In any event, according to us, this is a matter for trial and the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked at this stage for quashing of the First Information Report. There being no merit in the present application, application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE |mule| Crim. Application (APL) No.467 of 2011. 6