1 ndm 31 appln.188.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2010 Mrs. Iffat Mirza and ors. ... APPLICANTS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. C.K. Pendse for Applicants. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State. -------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 19 th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 By way of present Application, the Applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No. 750/PW/2009 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 17 th Court at Borivali, Mumbai. 3 One Lalji Yadav, the husband of the Respondent No.2 herein had committed suicide on 15 th October, 2008 by jumping from the terrace 2 of the factory premises of Applicant No.1’s establishment. Initially, an AD came to be registered. Subsequently on 20 th October, 2008 an offence came to be registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present Applicants alleging therein that certain amount was due to the deceased from the Applicant No.1. It is alleged in the FIR that on 15 th October, 2008, when the deceased had gone to the factory of the Applicant No.1, he met Respondent No.3 regarding the payment of his dues. It is alleged that since Applicant No.3 refused to make the payment, there was some altercation between them and due to the same, the deceased went on the fourth floor of the factory of the Applicant No.1 and committed suicide. On the basis of the said allegations, a charge- sheet also came to be filed. 4 The application has been filed by the Applicants for quashing the proceedings on the ground that even taking the entire prosecution material on its face value, no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against them. 5 The Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that initially when a statement was recorded by Goregaon Police Station, she had not made any allegations against the Applicants. It is stated by her that, however, at the instances of her neighbourers and well wishers, she requested the police authority to make an inquiry as to why her husband had jumped. She has stated in her affidavit that as she 3 has received an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the Applicants towards the compensation of her husband’s death. 6 Though it is brought on record that the matter has been amicably settled between the Applicants and the Respondent No.2, since the offence is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, merely because the matter has been settled between the parties, cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 7 In that view of the matter, it will be necessary to refer to the prosecution material to find out as to whether the case for proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out or not. 8 From the perusal of the charge-sheet, it could be seen that the wife of the deceased has stated in her supplementary statement that on the date of incident, her husband had informed her at around 03:00 p.m. that he had received various calls from the Basic Garments and therefore, he went from the house. She stated that, however, subsequently, she was informed by an employee of Basic Garments that the deceased has fallen from the terrace of the Company’s premises and died. She states in her complaint that there was no trouble in the family, which could have been cause for the said suicide. She states that since the owner of the Basic Garments and the manager had refused to make 4 the payment to the deceased, he had committed suicide. The other statements is one of the relatives of the deceased, which only narrates about the suspicion. 9 The Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of Mr. Shamlal Keshavprasad Sharma, Mr. Dheerajkumar Vinaykumar Shrivastava, Mr. Shah Mohammad Noor Mohammad Shaikh, Mr. Kaliprasad Dwarkaprasad Tiwari and Mr. Ramesh Bhikusheth Khatu, who are the employees of the Basic Garments factory. 10 Out of these five statements, the statements of three persons only state that on 15 th October, 2008, the deceased had come to the factory and had gone upstairs and after sometime they heard the noise and therefore, they came to know about the suicide committed by the deceased. Insofar as, the statements of Mr. Shamlal Keshavprasad Sharma and Mr. Dheerajkumar Vinaykumar Shrivastava are concerned, they state that on 15 th October, 2008 at about 16:30 hrs, the deceased had come to the factory and informed the Applicant No.3 that he had brought the goods and asked him to send someone to collect the goods from the rickshaw. They state that when they went downstairs they found that there was no rickshaw standing downstairs and therefore, they came back in the building and informed the Applicant No.3 about the same. They state that at that time, they heard the commotion as the other workers working on the fourth floor were coming down. They state that 5 they also came down and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground. They further state that the deceased was thereafter taken by Applicant No.2 and others for medical treatment. 11 The Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 while considering the provisions of Section 306 has observed thus: “6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” In the facts of the said case, though there was a suicide note of the deceased addressed to his wife that he was committed suicide and Sanjay Sengar was responsible for his death, the Apex Court found that his suicide, which occurred on 27 th July, 1998 had no relation with the alleged act of the accused on 25 th July, 1998 and therefore, quashed the charge-sheet against the accused. 12 In the present case, in none of the statements of any of the witness, there is even a whisper that on the day of incident, there was any act or omission on the part of the accused, which could be said to be 6 an instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. I am therefore, of the considered view that even if taking the prosecution case at its face value, there is not even a remote possibility of the accused being convicted for the offence charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 13 In that view of the matter, I find that this is a fit case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 14 Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]