Dismissed

Dilip Gambhir Borse (Intervener / Applicant) and the Applicant v. Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2012APPW/499/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking a mandate to register an FIR for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court held that evidence showed the accused student was not actually suspended and the principal did not instigate the act, so no offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no mandatory FIR ordered; Section 174 CrPC report directed; associated criminal application disposed of.

Dilip Gambhir Borse (Intervener / Applicant) and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

WP-2875-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2875 OF 2012

¶5

Bhalchandra Bhagat … Petitioner V/s. Senior Police Inspector, Panvel City Police Station, Dist. Raigad & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2012 IN

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2875 OF 2012

¶8

Dilip Gambhir Borse … Applicant/Intervener And Bhalchandra Bhagat … Original Petitioner V/s. Senior Police Inspector, Panvel City Police Station, Dist. Raigad & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S.K. Shinde, i/by Mr. Prashant D. Jadhav, for the Intervener in Criminal Application No.499 of 2012.

¶11

Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P., for the RespondentState.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & S.S. SHINDE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 4 TH DECEMBER, 2012.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Intervener. We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the Respondents.

1/4

Dixit

WP-2875-12

A unfortunate father, whose son committed suicide, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing registration of the First Information Report on the basis of complaint dated 9^th June, 2011.

¶20

According to the case of the Petitioner, his son Swapnil was final year student of Engineering College by the name A.C. Patil College of Engineering, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. In the complaint filed by the Petitioner, it is alleged that on 5^th February, 2011, there was a dispute between two groups of the college students. It is alleged that without any prior intimation, action of suspension was taken by the Principal of the College against Swapnil for a period of six months. It is alleged that due to the said action of suspension, Swapnil was under enormous tension and on 18^th March, 2011, he consumed poison. Ultimately, he died on 22^nd June, 2011 due to consumption of poison. It is alleged that the Principal of the College has abetted the suicide.

¶21

Today, the learned A.P.P. states that a Report of the Chemical Analyzer has been received, which confirms that the death is due to poisoning. She states that, on investigation, the concerned Police Officer came to the conclusion that no offence or abetment of suicide is made out and, therefore, the concerned Police Officer has decided not to register offence. She states that a Report in accordance with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be submitted by the concerned Police Officer in accordance with law.

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the reply filed by the Senior Inspector of Police attached to the Panvel City Police Station. He pointed out that, in fact, it was revealed during the investigation that the Petitioner's son was never suspended and the Disciplinary Committee had recommended suspension. He stated that it is apparent that the Petitioner's son

2/4

Dixit

WP-2875-12

was not suspended for six months, but still he was prevented from attending lectures. He invited out attention to the assertions made in the paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the affidavitinreply. He submitted that what is stated therein clearly shows that the Petitioner's son was prevented by the Principal from attending lectures. He, therefore, submitted that on plain reading even of the affidavit, offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

¶27

We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the complaint, which is filed first in point of time. It is alleged that, on 5^th February, 2011, there was a dispute between the two groups of college students and, therefore, the Petitioner's son was suspended for a period of six months. According to the case of the Petitioner, his son consumed poison nearly one and a half months after 5^th February, 2011. Perusal of the reply filed by the Investigating Officer shows that it is alleged by the Principal that the deceased along with his friends assaulted college students on 5^th February, 2011, after Annual Gathering of the College. He received complaints from the students and, therefore, the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Committee. On 9^th February, 2011, the Petitioner along with his deceased son and other witnesses were present before the Disciplinary Committee, when the Petitioner's son admitted his guilt and tendered apology. It is stated that the Principal disclosed that though the Disciplinary Committee had recommended suspension, the action was not taken considering the future prospects of the Petitioner's son. In fact, it is stated that the academic progress of the Petitioner's son was not good. It is further alleged that incident of 5^th February, 2011 was intimated to Kharghar Police Station on 25^th February, 2011. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the College staff, members of the Disciplinary Committee, students and classmates of the deceased, who were aware of the incident of 5^th February, 2011.

3/4

Dixit

WP-2875-12

Going by the complaint made by the Petitioner and going by the statements made in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is impossible to say that the Principal of the College instigated the Petitioner's son to commit suicide, or, that he intentionally aided, by his act or illegal omission, the commission of suicide. Thus, even going by the allegations made in the first complaint, offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all made out. Moreover, the alleged action was taken by the Principal on 5^th February, 2011 and the Petitioner's son consumed poison one and half months thereafter.

¶32

Therefore, this is not a case where Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing registration of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the Principal of the College.

¶33

We accept the statement of the learned A.P.P., on instructions, that Report in accordance with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be filed. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate will pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶34

10. Subject to what is observed above, Petition is rejected.

¶35

In view of rejection of the Petition, Criminal Application No.499 of 2012 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶36

[S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.S. OKA, J.]

¶37

4/4

Dilip Gambhir Borse (Intervener / Applicant) and the Applicant v. Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Gambhir Borse (Intervener / Applicant) and the Applicant v. Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanduben Vasaram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayprakash R. Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Technotrade Impex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balchandra Bhagat Vs Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Shyam Laxman Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lilabai Vishnu Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.