The statute does not mandate all components of the crime to be listed in the FIR: Bombay High Court

 on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD922 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1606 OF 2019 Smt. Jayshri W o Ratan Uchit @ Jayshri W o subhash Bagul Age : 32 years Occ : Household R o Shivajinagar Karmad Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad At present residing at JadhavwadiAurangabad ..APPLICANT VERSUS 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector KannadPolice Station Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Shankar Pandurang UchitAge : 39 years Occ : Agri. R o Shivajinagar Kannad Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS...Mr.Suvidh S. Kulkarni Advocate for theapplicant. Mr.S.J. Salgare APP for respondent no.1 State. Mr.Yogesh Bolkar Advocate for respondent no.2. … CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE AND B.U.DEBADWAR JJ. RESERVED ON : 24th March 2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 06th April 2021JUDGMENTfor quashing FIR. 2.The applicant prays to quash the FIRNo.0032 2019 registered on the basis of thereport lodged by Shankar Pandurang Uchit on07.02.2019 under section 306 of the IndianPenal CodeatKannad City Police Station Dist.Aurangabad. 3.Heard Mr.Suvidh Kulkarni thelearned Advocate for the applicant Mr.YogeshBolkar the learned Advocate for respondentNo.2 and Mr.S.J. Salgare the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondentno.1 State. 4.The allegations averments made inthe FIR in short are that deceased RatanPandurang Uchit was elder brother of firstinformant Shankar Pandurang Uchit. He wasagriculturist by profession. His first wifewas a Cancer patient. She had committedsuicide getting depressed with Cancer ofwhich she was suffering. Deceased Ratan hastwo children born from the first wife. Afterthe death of first wife Ratan performedsecond marriage with applicant on 11.09.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt3their community at Mayur Park area ofAurangabad. The first husband of theapplicant had died prior to her marriage withdeceased Ratan Uchit. After marriage theapplicant used to pick up quarrel withdeceased Ratan Uchit frequently on pettyreasons. Ratan Uchit used to inform about thesame to his younger brother i.e. firstinformant Shankar Uchit. On 07.02.2019 atabout 8.30 a.m. when Shankar Uchit firstinformant had been to his field situatedwithin the limits of village Makranpur so asto bring milk at that time his cousinbrother Pandit Uchit informed him that RatanUchit has committed suicide by hanginghimself to the Neem Tree standing on thedyke of their field. Upon knowing the same Shankar Uchit rushed to the aforesaid spotand saw his brother Ratan Uchit hanging tothe tree. In pursuance of the informationreceived the Police reached there removedthe dead body of Ratan Uchit from the NeemTree to which he was hanging and preparedthe inquest panchanama. During the course ofdrawing inquest panchanama along with a CellPhone one suicide note was found in thepocket of pant worn by deceased Ratan. Fromthe contents of that suicide note Shankar on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt4Uchit first informant has realized that hisbrother Ratan Uchit has committed suicide bygetting fed up with quarrels raised by theapplicant constantly. After performingfuneral and last rituals on the dead body ofRatan Uchit one more suicide note leftbehind by him was found kept near a SpeedMeter of motorcycle bearing no.MH 20 DL 1726.The recitals of the said suicide note wereidentical with the earlier suicide note foundin the pocket of pant of Ratan Uchit.According to Shankar Uchit first informant his brother Ratan Uchit has committed suicideby getting fed up with the quarrels beingraised by the applicant frequently for pettyreasons. Therefore the applicant isresponsible for the suicide death of hisbrother Ratan Uchit. 5.Mr.Suvidh Kulkarni the learnedAdvocate while taking us through the FIR annexed to the application vehemently arguedthat only after four months and six days ofmarriage with applicant Ratan Uchit hascommitted suicide. FIR sought to be quashedhas been registered for the offence ofabetment to commit suicide punishable undersection 306 of the I.P.C. The allegations on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt5about abetment made in the FIR are very muchvague in nature. Details of alleged quarrelsdo not find place in the FIR In order tobring home guilt under section 306 of theI.P.C. it is necessary to prove theabetment. Section 107 of the I.P.C. defines`Abetment’. On the basis of the allegationsmade in FIR it cannot be gathered thateither the applicant instigated orintentionally aided deceased Ratan Uchit forcommission of suicide. Allegations made inFIR that the applicant used to pick up pettyquarrels with deceased Ratan Uchitfrequently in any case do not satisfy thedefinition of abetment. When there are noallegations made in the FIR from which it canbe gathered that the applicant intentionallyinstigated her husband Ratan Uchit to commitsuicide and in pursuance of the saidinstigation Ratan Uchit her husbandcommitted suicide there is no propriety indragging the applicant to face the trial which would ultimately result into hisacquittal. 6.In support of his submissions Mr.Kulkarni learned Advocate has placedreliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt6of this Court delivered in the case of Dilipand Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.{2016 All MR4328}.7.Per contra Mr.Yogesh Bolkar thelearned Advocate strenuously argued thatRatan Uchit had committed suicide only afterfour months and six days of the marriageperformed with the applicant. The applicantis a quarrelsome woman. In a short span offour months and few days of the marriage shehad harassed her husband Ratan Uchitmentally to a great extent by picking upquarrels with him frequently for pettyreasons. The applicant has not seriouslydisputed genuineness of suicide notes leftbehind by Ratan Uchit. Both the suicide notesare identical. The suicide notes and recitalsof the FIR lodged by the real younger brotherof Ratan Uchit show that harassment by theapplicant was to such an extent that deceasedRatan Uchit was left with no otheralternative but to end his life. Nothing onrecord indicating that Ratan Uchit wassuffering from mental disease. The applicantalso does not say so. Ratan Uchit wasmentally and physically fit would not havecommitted suicide unless harassment on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt7ill treatment meted out by the deceased wasof such a gravity which led him to commitsuicide. According to Mr.Yogesh Bolkar learned Advocate the recitals of FIR are prima facie quite sufficient to make out thecase under section 306 of the I.P.C. againstthe applicant. Therefore the application forquashing FIR is liable to be dismissed. 8.Mr.S.J. Salgare the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondentno.1 State submitted that having regard tothe allegations made in the FIR and recitalsof both the suicide notes left behind byRatan Uchit it cannot be said that the FIRis wholly imaginary. According to Mr.Salgare the investigation is almost completed andthus accordingly prayed for dismissal ofapplication. 9.Practically in all matters underSection 482 of the Code of Criminalprocedure 1973 the accused approaches theCourt on the ground that the FirstInformation Reporton the face of it does not disclose ingredients that wouldconstitute a cognizable offence. Thus theinherent power of the High Court in it’s on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt8jurisdiction under Section 482 is invokedfor seeking the quashing of the FIR. 10.In C.B.I. Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh6 SCC 175 : AIR 2003 SC 4140 theHonourable supreme court has held inparagraph 22 that “The law does not requirethe mentioning of all the ingredients of theoffence in the FIR. It is only aftercompletion of the investigation that it maybe possible to say whether any offence ismade out on the basis of the evidencecollected by the investigating agency.” It isobserved that an FIR is not an encyclopediawhich must disclose all the facts and detailsrelating to the offence alleged to have beencommitted. It requires no debate that an FIRis merely a report by the informant about thecommission of a cognizable offence and itcannot be ruled out that minute details maynot be mentioned. It cannot be ignored thatan FIR pertains to an offence which isalleged to have been committed and theinformant in a disturbed state of mind andshaken on account of a serious offencecommitted approaches a police station forrecording an FIR. on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt911.In the State of Punjab Vs. DharamSingh 621 : 1987 Supp. SCC89 the Honourable Supreme Court held thatthe High Court had erred in quashing the FIRby going beyond the averments to consdierthe merits of the case even before theinvestigating agency has embarked upon thelegal exercise of collecting evidence.12.In Kurukshetra University Vs. Stateof Haryana4 SCC 451 : AIR 1977 SCC2229( a Three Judges bench) the HonourableSupreme Court has observed thus: “It surprises in the extremethat the High Court thought thatin the exercise of its inherentpowers under Section 482 CriminalProcedure Code it could quash andFIR. The Police had not evencommenced investigation into thecomplaint filed by the warden ofthe University and no proceedingat all was pending in any Court inpursuance of the FIR. It ought tobe realized that inherent powersdo not confer any arbitraryjurisdiction on the High Court toact according to its whim orcaprice.” 13.In Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt10State of uttar Pradesh and another 10SCC 741 the Honourable Supreme Court hasheld that in the absence of any specificallegation and an FIR prima facie indicating no case against the co accused the Court would have the power to quash anFIR.14.In Parbatbhai Aahir alias ParbatbhaiBhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State ofGujarat and another 9 SCC 641 theHonourable supreme Court has laid down theguiding principles to be considered indetermining whether an FIR could be quashed as under: “(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves theinherent powers of the High Courtto prevent an abuse of the processof any court or to secure the endsof justice. The provision does notconfer new powers. It onlyrecognises and preserves powerswhich inhere in the High Court.The invocation of thejurisdiction of the High Court toquash a first information report ora criminal proceeding on the groundthat a settlement has been arrivedat between the offender and thevictim is not the same as theinvocation of jursidiction for thepurpose of compounding an offence. on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt11While compounding an offence thepower of the court is governed bythe provisions of Section 320 CrPC.The power to quash under Section482 is attracted even if theoffence is non compoundable.In forming an opinionwhether a criminal proceeding orcomplaint should be quashed inexercise of its jurisdiction underSection 482 the High Court mustevaluate whether the ends ofjustice would justify the exerciseof the inherent power.While the inherent power ofthe High Court has a wide ambit andplenitude it has to be exercised(i) to secure the ends of justice orto prevent an abuse of theprocess of any court.In the exercise of thepower under Section 482 and whiledealing with a plea that thedispute has been settled the HighCourt must have due regard to thenature and gravity of the offence.Heinous and serious offencesinvolving mental depravity oroffences such as murder rape and on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt12dacoity cannot appropriately bequashed though the victim or thefamily of the victim have settledthe dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private innature but have a serious impactupon society. The decision tocontinue with the trial in suchcases is founded on the overridingelement of public interest inpunishing persons for seriousoffences.In such a case the HighCourt may quash the criminalproceeding if in view of thecompromise between the disputants the possibility of a conviction isremote and the continuation of acriminal proceeding would causeoppression and prejudice andThere is yet an exceptionto the principle set out in on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt13Propositionsandabove Economic offences involving thefinancial and economic well being ofthe State have implications whichlie beyond the domain of a meredispute between private disputants.The High Court would be justified indeclining to quash where theoffender is involved in an activityakin to a financial or economicfraud or misdemeanour. Theconsequences of the act complainedof upon the financial or economicsystem will weigh in the balance.” 15.In the light of the aforesaidsubmissions made by the learned Advocates ofboth the sides and the crystalised positionof law for invocation of powers under section482 of the Cr.P.C. we have carefully gonethrough the FIR. It is pertinent to note thatthe marriage between Ratan Uchit and theapplicant was the second marriage for both ofthem. It is evident from the record thatRatan Uchit has died due to hanging on thetree only after four months and six days ofthe marriage with the applicant. Theapplicant has not seriously disputed thenature of death of her husband Ratan. Thedispute is only about abetment. It is settledposition of law that intention is theconcomitant of the abetment. Merely for the on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt14reason that details of quarrels alleged tohave been raised by the applicant with herhusband Ratan Uchit have not been given inthe FIR an inference cannot be drawn thatthe alleged quarrels had no nexus with thesuicide death of Ratan Uchit. The allegationsabout quarrels being picked up by theapplicant with deceased Ratan Uchitfrequently are supported by two suicidenotes left behind by deceased Ratan Uchit.There is nothing on record showing that RatanUchit was suffering from any mental diseaseor chronic ailment. When Ratan was mentallyand physically fit he had no reason tocommit suicide unless harassment meted outby the applicant was of such nature andextent which would compel him to commitsuicide. 16.In Dilip and otherstheCoordinate Bench of this Court afterconsidering the various judgments of theHon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “unless there is clear mens rea tocommit an offence or active act ordirect act which led the deceased tocommit suicide seeing no option or the on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt15act intending to push the deceased intosuch a position the trial against theaccused under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code in our considered view would be an abuse of process of law.”17.In Dilip and othersaJudicial Officer had committed suicide on histransfer to Taluka place from the districthead quarters by his superior JudicialOfficer. Except the grievance of transfer the deceased Judicial officer had no othergrievance against his superior JudicialOfficer. In suicide note Junior JudicialOfficer who committed suicide has expressedanguish against the Senior Judicial Officer.Having regard to all these facts theCoordinate Bench of this Court had quashedthe FIR. 18.The facts of the case at hand arealtogether different. Ratan Uchit wasmentally and physically fit person hascommitted suicide only within four months andsix days after the marriage with theapplicant and it is alleged in the FIR andtwo suicide notes left behind by deceasedRatan Uchit that the applicant used to pick on 06 04 2021 on 07 04 1606.19APPLN.odt16up quarrels with him frequently. Therefore he was fed up and committed suicide. In viewof these material allegations made in the FIRand two suicide notes left behind by deceasedRatan Uchit at this juncture inferencecannot be drawn that the applicant did notinstigate her husband Ratan Uchit to commitsuicide or there was no intention behind thequarrels which she used to pick up with herhusband frequently. Only after trial thismaterial aspect can be decided. Therefore itis not proper to quash the FIR gettinginfluenced with the submission that theapplicant had no intention to drive herhusband Ratan Uchit to commit suicide. 19.In view of above we are notinclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly theapplication is rejected.(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.)SGA 

Summary: The facts and information of the suspected offences are not an encyclopedia that is to reveal all the facts and details. It doesn’t need an argument, and cannot be ruled out as a result, that the FIR is just an informant’s note on a recognizable offence. This auspicious judgment was passed by The High Court of Bombay in the Matter of Smt. Jayshri W/o Ratan Uchit vs The State of Maharashtra and others. [922 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1606 OF 2019] by Honorable Justice R.V. Ghuge &amp; Justice B. U. Debadwar. The facts of the case are that Ratan Uchit had been mentally and physically fit, committed suicide within just four months and six days, after marriage with the applicant, and two suicide notes, which the deceased Ratan Uchit had left behind, contended that the applicant was often engaged in quarrels with him. He was then fed up and committed suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that FIR sought to be quashed has been registered for the offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C, and allegation about abetment made in the FIR is very much vague in nature. There are no charges are made under the FIR which suggests that, in accordance with that instigation, the applicant deliberately prompted her husband Ratan Uchit to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that Ratan Uchit had committed suicide only after four months and six days of the marriage performed with the applicant. She is a quarrelsome woman, she had mentally harassed her husband to a great extent by picking up quarrels with him frequently for petty reasons. The court relied on the case of “C.B.I. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh; the Honourable Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22 that “The law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only after completion of the investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. It is observed that an FIR is not an encyclopedia that must disclose all the facts and details relating to the offence alleged to have been committed. It requires no debate that an FIR is merely a report by the informant about the commission of a cognizable offence and it cannot be ruled out that minute details may not be mentioned.”