Quashed

Poonam Udayraj Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2012APL/989/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the applicant regarding the suicide of her neighbor Ganesh. The court held that a suicide note blaming the victim for a love affair does not satisfy the ingredients for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicant are quashed and set aside. Bail bonds are terminated.

Poonam Udayraj Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

apl989-12.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.989 OF 2012

¶7

Poonam Udayraj Mehta. …Applicant versus 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.A.A.Gavankar, for Applicant.

¶9

Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 23^rd November, 2012

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for applicant. Based on the permission, service was tried to be effected by speed post upon the respondents. The Photostat copy of the track result of the packet indicates that on 20.10.2012 it is delivered to the addressee. An affidavit to this effect is filed. Thus, service is complete. Respondent no.2 Mahesh called, absent.

¶13

The applicant has urged for discharge in Crime no.13 of 2012 of N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station dated 20.1.2012 culminating into Criminal case no.383/PW/2012 pending on the file of the learned 29^th M.M.Court, Dadar, Mumbai.

¶14

The deceased Ganesh had alleged love affair with the applicant Poonam, failure in the love affair entailed the deceased to commit suicide on

apl989-12.sxw

2/3

Pvr

17.1.2012. The invitation card illustrates, marriage of Poonam was settled on 15.2.2012. Probably due to such arrangement of marriage, Ganesh has out of low frustration tolerance has committed suicide. Record also illustrates, in past in June,2011, he had attempted for suicide, by inhaling poisonous substance, but did not succeed. The deceased and the applicant Poonam are neighbours in the same chawl, known to each other and consequently all the affairs and development with Poonam or her prospect of marital efforts were known to Ganesh.

¶19

The learned APP submits that the earlier statement of Mahesh dated

¶20

17.1.2012 was when accidental death report was prepared by the investigator. Subsequently, a chit left by the deceased Ganesh is recovered by the police which confirms handwriting of said Ganesh.

¶21

The text on said death note in Hindi which reads as under:-

¶22

“merI maEt kI vja i}k pUnm hE . m ja rha hU . tune doqa ikya hE . tere ksm brobr 8 bje Ab Zu] nhI bolunga merI maEt kI vja isrf pUnm hE . my ja rha hU . Ab qux rhna . Ab na fon na SMS. mEy fasI lga rha hu Daoka kIya hE . Sorry. Rsuha Khushi My”

¶23

(The responsibility for my death vests with Poonam. I am leaving, Now live

¶24

happily. I am strangulating. Now onwards no phone, no SMS. Bitter. Sorry. My. For my death, Poonam is responsible. I am leaving. You have cheated me.”)

¶25

Reading the text of the above referred suicidal note, even if it is accepted, hardly attracts ingredients of Section 306 of IPC which deals with

apl989-12.sxw

3/3

Pvr

abetment of suicide. Abetment is explained in Section 107 and 109 of IPC. The abetment conceive, a person instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶30

A settled legal position is indicated in the matter of “Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837”. Three Judges bench of the Supreme Court indicated, what constitutes instigation, it must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.

¶31

From the record, it is apparent the deceased was hyper sensitive. He had in past attempted to commit suicide but failed. The applicant marrying somebody else may be a love failure felt by the deceased. Low tolerance level by deceased would not be abetment by Accused to implicate for an offence under Section 306 of IPC. Added to it, in the first statement of Mahesh dated 17.1.2012 he has not expressed any doubt to anybody though he was consciously knew the fact that his brother had love affair. In the result, the FIR and the proceedings against the applicant are quashed and set aside. Bail bonds terminated.

Poonam Udayraj Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Udayraj Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Popat Vamanro Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharati Mohanrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kavita Goel and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater and Anr.

Jahid @ Sonu Mehboob Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anson Thomas Vs Miliben Mondubhai Mandal and Ors.

Sumitra S. Banerjee Vs CBI Acb, Mumbai