Partly allowed

1. Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC6 Jun 2017APPLN/3807/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC. The High Court held that against Applicants Nos. 2 and 4, names were not in the FIR and no specific overt acts linked them to the suicide, ordering the FIR quashed regarding them. However, against Applicants Nos. 1 and 3, they were specifically named in the FIR and suicide note with alleged overt acts, so the application was rejecte

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed in part; FIR quashed against Applicants No. 2 and No. 4; Application rejected against Applicants No. 1 and No. 3; prosecution can proceed against the latter.

1. Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cra3807.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3807 OF 2016

¶6

1) Ravindra s/o Bhimrao Khillare, Age-36 years, Occu:Labour, 2) Seema w/o Ravindra Khillare, Age-30 years, Occu:Household, 3) Deepak s/o Bhimrao Khillare, Age-28 years, Occu:Labour, 4) Kalpana w/o Deepak Khillare, Age-23 years, Occu:Household, All R/o- Bagsher Jung,

¶7

Near Rama Nagar, Darga Road, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Osmanpura, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad, 2) Jilabai w/o Atmaram Ingale, Age-60 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Galli No.2, Rama Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS

¶10

cra3807.16

¶11

¶12

...

¶13

 Mr.S.J. Salunke Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.S.G. Ladda Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶16

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 4TH APRIL,2017.

¶17

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 6TH JUNE, 2017.

¶18

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶19

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶20

2.By way of filing this Application, the
Applicants have prayed that the First Information
Report No.78 of 2016 dated 15th April, 2016
registered with Police Station, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad for the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian

¶21

Penal Code, may be quashed and set aside.

¶22

3.Respondent No.2 herein - Jijabai w/o

¶23

¶24

cra3807.16

¶25

Atmaram Ingale, who is mother of deceased
Chandrakant, lodged First Information Report
stating therein that, her married son Chandrakant
was a practicing as an Advocate. He was blessed
with a son namely Vaibhav and a daughter namely
Ranjandini.

¶26

.On 5th April, 2016, during morning hours,

¶27

wife of Chandrakant saw her husband in a hanging
condition to a roof of room situate in their own
house. He was removed from the house and was taken
to the hospital. When he was hospitalized, a chit

¶28

was found in his pocket. It was written in the
said chit/note that, an accused Ravindra, Deepak
and their wives i.e. Applicant Nos.2 and 4, with
co-accused Prakash are responsible for his
commission of suicide. All of them harassed him

¶29

for repayment of money, and also threatened to
kill him. Due to said harassment by the accused

¶30

persons, he is committing suicide. On the back
side of the said chit, it was written, that the
accused persons gave him money on condition of

¶31

cra3807.16

¶32

¶33

paying the same back to them with interest. Though
the said amount was repaid with interest, again
demand was made by them, and cheque was obtained
from Chandrakant and also undertaking was taken on
the bond. On 4th April, 2016, Deepak snatched
mobile from him. The informant further alleged
that, the accused with an intention that
Chandrakant should commit suicide, instigated an
act of commission of suicide by Chandrakant and
ultimately Chandrakant committed suicide, and died
on 12th April, 2016. On the basis of an aforesaid
information Crime was registered against five
accused persons including the present Applicants
for the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.
Code").

¶34

4.Hence this Application is filed by the
Applicants, for quashing the First Information
Report.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

5.

¶37

cra3807.16

¶38

¶39

applicants submitted that, the police ought not to
have registered the crime under Section 306 of the

¶40

I.P. Code. Merely being named in the alleged
suicide note, one shall not immediately jump to
the conclusion that a person is an offender. There
must be an intentional aiding to the commission of
suicide by the accused. The contents of the
suicide note and other attending circumstances
have to be examined so as to find out, whether the

¶41

act/acts of the accused would constitute an
abetment, instigation or intentional aiding
within the meaning of Section 107 of the I.P.

¶42

Code, so as to constitute an offence punishable
under Section 306 of I.P. Code.

¶43

6.Learned counsel further submitted that

¶44

Chandrakant died on 12th April, 2016, and the

¶45

First Information Report was lodged on 15th
April, 2016. There is delay in lodging the First
Information Report which is not explained by the
informant. Thus an allegations levelled against
the Applicants are the result of due deliberation

¶46

cra3807.16

¶47

¶48

and concoction.

¶49

7. Learned counsel further submitted that

¶50

the Applicants never lend any amount on the basis
of repayment of said amount on interest basis to
deceased Chandrakant. Applicants are not involved
in any money lending business. It is submitted
that deceased Chandrakant was practicing as an
Advocate in the Civil and Criminal Court at
Aurangabad. One Subhash Sukhdeo Jadhav is the
relative of accused Ravindra. Subhash was in jail
in connection with the offence of rape. Accused

¶51

Ravindra was acquainted with deceased Chandrakant
being a lawyer. The merits of bail application of
Subhash Jadhav were discussed with deceased
Chandrakant. It is submitted that, Chandrakant
taken exorbitant amount of Rs.60,000/- from Subash

¶52

Jadhav. An amount of Rs.60,000/- paid to
Chandrakant was demanded by accused Ravindra, as

¶53

Subhash was not released on bail. It is submitted
that the cheque of Rs.60,000/- was issued by

¶54

deceased Chandrakant in favour of accused

¶55

cra3807.16

¶56

¶57

Ravindra. However when the cheque was presented,
it was dishonoured for not having sufficient
funds.

¶58

8.Learned counsel for the Applicants
submits that deceased Chandrakant was addicted to
bad vices. He borrowed huge amount from many
people, but was unable to repay the same. His
family life was also disturbed due to his bad
habits and huge debt incurred by him. Due to the
huge debt and family problems, Chandrakant
committed suicide. It is submitted that only being
relatives of accused No.1 Ravindra, rest of the
accused are roped into an alleged offence. It is
submitted that, alleged note written by
Chandrakant before commission of suicide is
fabricated document, and no reliance whatsoever
can be placed on contents of the said chit.

¶59

Applicants submits that, even if an allegations in
the First Information Report are taken at its face

¶60

cra3807.16

¶61

¶62

value and read in its entirety, prima facie

¶63

alleged offences have not been disclosed against

¶64

the Applicants. An allegations against the

¶65

Applicants are so absurd that no prudent person
would believe the same. The continuation of the

¶66

criminal proceedings on the basis of the First
Information Report which is lodged against the
Applicants only with a view of wrecking vengeance,
would be sheer abuse of the process of law, and
ultimately, trial would not result into

¶67

conviction of the Applicants.

¶68

10.Learned counsel submitted that an

¶69

abetment involves mental process of an instigation
or intentionally aiding person to do certain

¶70

thing. Some positive act by accused is essential

¶71

to constitute abetment. In support of aforesaid

¶72

submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

¶73

of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P.1 Learned

¶74

counsel further submitted that merely on

¶75

12010 Cri. L.J. 2110

¶76

cra3807.16

¶77

¶78

allegations of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to time of occurrence on

¶79

the part of accused which led or compelled person
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section

¶80

306 of the I.P. Code is not sustainable. In

¶81

support of his submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of

¶82

Vijay @ Munna Bharat Gurkhde vs. State of
Maharashtra2. Learned counsel in support of his
submissions that persistent demand made by the
accused who claim that they are entitled to

¶83

recover money from any other person, cannot be
equated to an overt act as understood in Section
107 of the I.P. Code, placed reliance on the ratio

¶84

laid down in the case of Santosh Nathulmal Goenka

¶85

and another vs. State of Maharashtra, through its
P.S.O.3 Learned counsel further submitted that, to

¶86

constitute an offence under Section 306 of I.P.

¶87

Code, it is necessary for prosecution to at-least

¶88

prima facie establish that the accused had an

¶89

intention to aid the deceased to commit suicide.

¶90

2 2014(4) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)72

¶91

3 2010(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 233

¶92

cra3807.16

¶93

¶94

In absence of availability of such material, the
Applicants cannot be compelled to undergo ordeal
of trial. In support of his aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on
the law laid down in the case of Binod Ratan
Sarkar vs. State of Maharashtra4.

¶95

11.Therefore, relying upon the averments in
the Application, grounds taken therein, learned
counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that
the Application deserves to be allowed.

¶96

12.Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State,
relying upon the investigation papers and in
particular the contents of the First Information
Report, submits that an ingredients of alleged
offences have been clearly attracted on reading
the allegations in its entirety. It is submitted

¶97

that an allegations in the First Information

¶98

Report will have to be taken as it is and can be
tested only during trial. It is submitted that in

¶99

42014 All M.R.(Cri.) 1216.

¶100

cra3807.16

¶101

¶102

the suicide note the deceased has named the
Applicants. It is submitted that the Investigating
Officer has recorded statements of various
witnesses during the course of investigation and
also collected incriminating material and on the
basis of said material trial can proceed.
Therefore, he submits that the Application may be
rejected.

¶103

13.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent

¶104

No.2 submits that, an allegations in the First
Information Report will have to be taken as it is

¶105

and appreciation of those allegations or
statements of witnesses even in a summary manner
is not permissible, when there is a prayer for
quashing the First Information Report. He invites
our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on
behalf of Respondent No.2 and submits that the
Application filed by the Applicants is absolutely
erroneous, illegal and same is not maintainable at
all. Applicants have incorporated factual points
in the Application, and those points unless

¶106

cra3807.16

¶107

¶108

subjected to the test in the trial can not be
decided in either way. Therefore he submits that
in view of the position of law, the Application
deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is further
submitted that the deceased Chandrakant prior to
the registration of crime, has lodged a complaint
with the Police Station, Osmanpura, Aurangabad
against the Applicants and others complaining
about the harassment and threats given to him. It
is further submitted that deceased Chandrakant
left a suicide note, which prima facie indicates
the commission of cognizable offence. It is
further submitted that the decision over the facts
involved, needs full fledged trial. The complaint
cannot be thrown away at the threshold and that
too by using the extra ordinary and/or inherent
powers by this Court. In support of contentions
raised during the course of arguments, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 placed
reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
in the cases of (i) Didigam Bikshapathi and anr

¶109

cra3807.16

¶110

¶111

V/s State of A.P.5, (ii) The State of Punjab V/s

¶112

Iqbal Singh and others6, (iii) Surender V/s
State of Haryana7, (iv) Kishori Lal V/s State of
M.P.8, (v) Brij Lal V/s Prem Chand and another9
and(vi)Dammu Sreenu V/s State of A.P.10

¶113

Therefore, relying upon the averments in the
affidavit in reply, annexures thereto and also
investigation papers, learned counsel submits that
the Application may be rejected.

¶114

14.We have given careful consideration to

¶115

the submissions advanced by learned counsel

¶116

appearing for the Applicants, learned A.P.P.
appearing for Respondent No.1/State and learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. With their
able assistance, we have carefully perused the
averments and grounds taken in the application,
contents of the first information report, reply
filed by Respondent No.2 and investigation papers.

¶117

5 2008 Cri. L.J. 724

¶118

6 1991 Cri. L.J. 1897

¶119

7 2007 Cri. L.J. 779 8 AIR 2007 SC 2457

¶120

9 AIR 1989 SC 1661

¶121

10 2009 Cri.L.J. 3728

¶122

cra3807.16

¶123

¶124

Upon careful perusal of the contents of the first
information report and also the chit recovered
from the pocket of deceased Chandrakant, it is
abundantly clear that, the names of Applicant no.1
– Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare and Applicant no.3 –
Deepak Bhimrao Khillare are mentioned in the first
information report. Not only that, it is stated in
the said chit that, due to severe harassment given
by the accused, he is committing suicide. There is
specific overt act attributed to Applicant No.3 –
Deepak Bhimrao Khillare that, on 4th April, 2016,
he snatched mobile phone from the custody of
Chandrakant (deceased) and Chandrakant committed
suicide on 5th April, 2016.

¶125

15.Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in
reply and along with the said affidavit in reply,
there is one application addressed by Chandrakant
(now deceased) to the Police Inspector, Osmanpura
Police Station, Aurangabad. In the said
application, the name of present Applicant No.3 –
Deepak Bhimrao Khillare is mentioned. It further

¶126

cra3807.16

¶127

¶128

appears that, on the basis of the said
application, Crime No.333/2014 came to be
registered with Police Station, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad (City) on 29th November, 2014 at 11.30
a.m. Therefore, the question of entertaining the

¶129

application of Applicant No.3 Deepak Bhimrao
Khillare does not arise. So far as Applicant No.1
– Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare is concerned, he is
specifically named in the note written by
Chandrakant before committing suicide. Therefore,
the application of Applicant No.1 – Ravindra
Bhimrao Khillare deserves no consideration.

¶130

16.So far as Applicant No.2 – Seema Ravindra
Khillare and Applicant No.4 – Kalpana Deepak
Khillare are concerned, their names are not
mentioned in the first information report. It is
only mentioned that, they are wife of Ravindra

¶131

Bhimrao Khillare and wife of Deepak Bhimrao
Khillare, respectively. There is no specific overt

¶132

act attributed to them. Upon careful perusal of
the entire investigation papers, except statements

¶133

cra3807.16

¶134

¶135

of the witnesses, that too without mentioning the

¶136

names of the Applicant No.2 and Applicant No.4,
there are general allegations against them. Upon
close scrutiny of the allegations in the first
information report, contents of the chit i.e.
Suicide Note, and investigation papers, so far as
Applicant No.2 Seema Ravindra Khillare and
Applicant No.4 Kalpana Deepak Khillare are
concerned, there is no nexus between so called
commission of suicide by Chandrakant and the
general allegations made against them. Therefore,
there is no material suggesting any instigation,

¶137

abetment or intentional aid on the part of

¶138

Applicant Nos.2 and 4 in commission of suicide by
Chandrakant.

¶139

17.The Supreme Court in the case of S.S.
Chheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another11, in
para 25 observed that, the abetment involves
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.

¶140

11 (2010) 12 SCC 190

¶141

cra3807.16

¶142

¶143

Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the I.P. Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

¶144

18.The Supreme Court in the case of Madan

¶145

Mohan Singh V. State of Gujarat and another12,
while explaining the scope of Sections 306 and
294, in the facts of that case, in para 9 held
thus:-

¶146

"It is absurd to even think that a superior
officer like the appellant would intend to
bring about suicide of his driver and,

¶147

12 2010 AIR SCW 5101

¶148

cra3807.16

¶149

¶150

therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there
is no nexus between the so-called suicide
(if at all it is one for which also there
is no material on record) and any of the
alleged acts on the part of the appellant.
There is no proximity either. In the
prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much
more material is required. The Courts have
to be extremely careful as the main person
is not available for cross-examination by
the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore,
there is specific allegation and material
of definite nature (not imaginary or
inferential one), it would be hazardous to
ask the appellant/accused to face the
trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a
pleasant experience. The person like the
appellant in present case who is serving in
a responsible post would certainly suffer
great prejudice, were he to face
prosecution on absurd allegations of
irrelevant nature."

¶151

19.In the case of Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao
and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another
(Criminal Application No.332 of 2016) decided on
5th August, 2016, the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court, Bench at Nagpur considered the various

¶152

cra3807.16

¶153

¶154

Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court
and in Para 20 of the Judgment, held thus:

¶155

"20. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that for permitting a trial to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that abetment involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said persons cannot be compelled to face the trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to commit an offence or active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option or the act intending to push the deceased into such a position, the trial against the accused

¶156

cra3807.16

¶157

¶158

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
in our considered view, would be an abuse
or process of law."

¶159

20.Therefore, viewed from any angle, there

¶160

is no positive act of instigation, abetment or
intentional aiding attributed to applicant nos.2

¶161

and 4, within the proximity of commission of
suicide by Chandrakant. In that view of the
matter, the first information report qua Applicant
Nos.2 and 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, we pass the following order :-

¶162

ORDER:-

¶163

(i)The Criminal Application is partly
allowed. The F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.78 of 2016
registered on 15th April, 2016 with Police Station,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside in
respect of Applicant No.2 – Seema W/o Ravindra
Khillare and Applicant No.4 – Kalpana W/o Deepak
Khillare.

¶164

(ii)The Criminal Application, so far as

¶165

cra3807.16

¶166

¶167

Applicant No.1 – Ravindra S/o Bhimrao Khillare and
Applicant No.3 – Deepak S/o Bhimrao Khillare,
stands rejected. The prosecution can proceed
against them.

¶168

21.Rule made absolute on above terms. The
CriminalApplicationstandsdisposedof

¶169

accordingly.

¶170

22.An observations made hereinabove are
prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of the present Application only.

¶171

[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶172

sga/

1. Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare. v. 1. 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

Vicky S/O Babasaheb More and Anrs Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip S/O Trimbak Wavare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chayabai Wd/O. Sahebrao Hiwale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra S/O. Bhimrao Khillare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Fulsing S/O Bhaulal Bahure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mirabai W/O Bhaskar Kundade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.