Allowed

Veena Sanjay Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Aug 2013APL/569/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay HC quashed an FIR under Section 306 IPC. The court held that demanding reimbursement for vehicle damage from a deceased driver did not amount to instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Consequently, no prima facie offence was disclosed.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report lodged by respondent against applicant is quashed and set aside.

Veena Sanjay Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

cri-apl-569-13.doc

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2013

¶6

Mrs. Veena Sanjay Raut

¶7

.. Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. D. U. Mirajkar a/w Mrs. Shilpa G. Joshi and Mr. Vikas Kapile for applicant. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr. Rajesh Kanojiya for respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

AUGUST 13, 2013.

¶13

ORDER [ Per P. V. Hardas, J.]:

¶14

At the out-set, Mr. Mirajkar, learned counsel for the applicants, seeks leave to delete applicant no.2. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶15

By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶16

Procedure, the applicant/accused seeks quashing of the First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2, on the basis of which Kapurbawadi

¶17

¶18

cri-apl-569-13.doc

¶19

Police Station had registered an offence vide Crime No. I-124 of 2013 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Perusal of the First Information Report discloses that deceased Avadesh Singh was employed as a driver by applicant. It appears that on 5/4/2012, the vehicle belonging to the applicant met with an accident and a damage approximately worth Rs.90,000/- was caused to the said vehicle. The vehicle of the applicant, on that day, was being driven by deceased – Avadesh Singh. Applicant had, therefore, demanded deceased - Avadesh Singh to reimburse the cost of the damage to the vehicle. It further appears that on 7/10/2012 deceased – Avadesh Singh had requested the applicant to reconsider her decision as deceased – Avadesh Singh, who was paid a salary of Rs.8000/- per month was unable to pay the applicant an amount of Rs.90,000/-. It further appears that the applicant had informed deceased – Avadesh Singh that in the next 24 hours deceased – Avadesh Singh should pay the applicant Rs.90,000/-, otherwise the applicant would lodge a report with the police. It further appears that deceased – Avadesh Singh committed suicideon 8/10/2012. Pursuant to the death of deceased – Avadesh Singh, the First Information Report came to be lodged on 5/4/2013 i.e. after six months of the death of deceased – Avadesh Singh.

¶21

¶22

cri-apl-569-13.doc

¶23

Upon the filing of the report, the Kapurbawadi Police Station has registered an offence against the applicant vide Crime No. I-124 of 2013 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Mr. Mirajkar, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before

¶25

us that the applicant was asking deceased – Avadesh Singh to reimburse the damage caused to the vehicle, cannot be said to have abetted the commission of suicide. It is, therefore, urged before us that prima facie no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is disclosed in the First Information Report. The learned counsel representing respondent no.2 has urged before us that the applicant had created a situation which resulted in creating tension for the deceased – Avadesh Singh and the tension led deceased – Avadesh Singh to commit suicide. The learned counsel for respondent no.2, therefore, has submitted before us that the police have rightly registered an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Our attention is invited to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Girish s/o Sanjay Bole vs. The State of Maharashtra [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3863 . The Division Bench of this court, after examining

¶27

¶28

cri-apl-569-13.doc

¶29

the averments in the First Information Report came to the conclusion that the perusal of the First Information Report did not disclose the commission of a prima facie offence. In the said case, the accused therein had onesided love affair with deceased – Ekta. The accused therein was exerting pressure on her and along with his friends was mentally harassing Ekta. Deceased – Ekta was frustrated due to the harassment and, therefore, set herself ablaze. The dying declaration of Ekta indicated that it was on account of the harassment of the accused that she was committing suicide. The Division Bench, therefore, in that background, came to the conclusion by referring to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, that there was no evidence that the accused had instigated or had given intentional aid to Ekta for committing suicide.

¶30

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines as to what is abetment. Section 107 of the IPC specifies that a person abets the doing of a thing when (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The word “instigate” means to goad, provoke, incite or urge. In the present case, therefore, we find that merely because the applicant had

¶31

¶32

cri-apl-569-13.doc

¶33

demanded deceased – Avadesh Singh to reimburse the applicant no.1 for the damage caused to the vehicle, it cannot be presumed that the applicant had intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Thus, there is neither instigation nor any intentional aid offered by the applicant to the deceased for committing suicide. Thus, prima facie, no offence at all is disclosed on perusal of the First Information Report. To allow such a prosecution to proceed further would be an abuse of the process of court and, therefore, we allow the present application and quash and set aside the First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant no.1.

¶34

Application is allowed accordingly by quashing and setting aside the First Information Report lodged by the respondent no.2 on the basis of which Kapurbawadi Police Station had registered an offence against applicant vide Crime No.I-124 of 2013 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Veena Sanjay Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Sanjay Raut and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal @ Sagar Haribhau Nanaware @ Gurav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ramchandra Teke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantaam Maunji Phuphane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivmurthi Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sujata Ganesh Sunlulu and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pappu @ Atul Sonba Jogawade Vs the State of Maharashtra