High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench allowed an application for quashing of an FIR and granted anticipatory bail, holding no nexus existed between applicant and suicide of a subordinate.
FIR (Crime No. 136 of 2016) under Section 306 IPC registered against the applicant was quashed; application allowed and rule made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5283.16appln
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5283 OF 2016
Dadarao S/o Hausaji Dakore,
Age : 51 years, Occ : Service - Working
as Executive Engineer at Zilla
Parishad, Yavatmal,
R/o : Nanded, Dist. Nanded....APPLICANT
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Police Inspector, Police Station Vajirabad, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
3. Gangadhar S/o Sakharam Shinde, Age : 46 years, Occ : Service - Police Head Constable, PS - Vajirabad. Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for applicants: Mr.M.V. Salunke holding
for Mr. V.D. Salunke
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th February, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th March, 2017
JUDGMENT : (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith
5283.16appln
2
and heard finally with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.The brief facts as disclosed in the
application, are as under:-
The applicant is working on the post
of Executive Engineer, Water Supply,
Department, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. Earlier
the applicant was posted as Executive
Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded from
12.07.2012 till 31.07.2015. The applicant was
transferred from Nanded to Yavatmal on 31st
July, 2015. After transfer of the applicant
from Nanded, one Shri Navdunge resumed the
duties as Executive Engineer at Nanded. He
issued the work order on 7th May, 2016, and
allotted some work to one Vitthal Maruti
Waghmare (deceased), who was working in Sub-
Division, Minor Irrigation on CRT basis.
Shri Nivdunge, Executive Engineer
5283.16appln
3
came to be arrested on 10th August, 2016 in
ACB trap while accepting bribe of Rs.50,000/-
and accordingly, Crime No. 78/2016 came to be
registered against him at Vajirabad Police
Station, Nanded. One Shri Waghmare Vithal
(deceased) was doing the work along with said
Nivdunge during the relevant period and
hence, ACB Officer had called Shri.Vithal
Waghmare (deceased) for interrogation and he
was asked to submit files regarding the
offence registered against Shri Nivdunge.
It is alleged that, on 22nd August,
2016, Vitthal Maruti Waghmare, committed
suicide by hanging himself in the office of
Executive Engineer, leaving behind Suicide
Note, thereby stating that he was working on
CRT basis in Sub Division, Minor Irrigation
and he was assigned heavy workload, which he
was unable to carry out. It is alleged that,
5283.16appln
4
he has no grudge or complaint against
anybody. It is alleged that, he has committed
the suicide on his own, and nobody can be
held responsible for his act of suicide.
After receiving information of commission of
suicide by Vithal Waghmare, his relatives and
the workers gathered on the spot and
pressurized the police officers to register
the offence against Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad. So also the relative of the
deceased refused to take dead body of
Waghmare unless the offence is registered. It
is the case of the applicant that the police
department,underpoliticalpressure
registered the offence at about 23.05 hours
on 23rd August, 2016 i.e. after 48 hours,
which is after thought, wherein one Police
Constable namely Gangadhar Sakharam Shinde
i.e. respondent No.3, is shown as
complainant. When applicant came to know
5283.16appln
5
through newspaper that such offence is
registered against him, he filed the
application for anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Judge, Nanded and the Sessions Judge
granted anticipatory bail on 6th September,
2016.
3.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that, the applicant is
working as Executive Engineer in Water Supply
Division. Said deceased Vithal Waghmare was
not working directly under the control of the
applicant and no work was alloted to said
Waghmare by the applicant. The learned
counsel submits that, as the deceased
Waghmare was not subordinate to the
applicant, therefore, there was no occasion
to allot some work to him or to extract some
work from him. The learned counsel further
submits that, even reading of the suicide
note as it is, it does not disclose any
5283.16appln
6
grudge and grievance against the present
applicant nor it discloses any cognizable
offence, more particularly, the offence under
section 306 of the IPC. The learned counsel
submits that, lodging of the complaint is
only misuse of process of law, particularly
by the Police Officer so as to run away from
the public pressure and to save the skin of
police department. The learned counsel
further submits that, the import of total
complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of
section 306 of Indian Penal Code. There is no
complaint alleged by anybody including the
family members of the deceased.
4.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicant invites our attention to the
contents of the suicide note and submits
that, even upon reading the contents of the
said suicide note, no offence is disclosed
against the applicant. He invites our
5283.16appln
7
attention to the provisions of Sections 107
and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and submits
that, the ingredients of the said offences
are not attracted, and therefore, no offence
is disclosed against the present applicant.
The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, therefore, submits that the
application deserves to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondent/State and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2 jointly submit that, there is suicide
note and also during investigation the
InvestigatingOfficerhascollected
sufficient material, which would clearly
disclose the alleged offences against the
applicant. Therefore, it is submitted that,
the application may be rejected.
6.We have given careful consideration
5283.16appln
8
to the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicant, the
learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent/State
and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2. We have also perused the
allegations in the first information report
and also investigation papers, which are made
available for perusal. The relevant portion
of the suicide note written by deceased
Waghmare reads thus :-
“ eh ekÖ;kdMs rRdkyhu dk;Zdkjh vfHk;ark Jh-Mkodksjs lkgsc ;kaP;k rksaMh @ ys[kh lqpuso:u ns.;kr vkysys dke gs vfr >kY;keqGs R;kpk ifj.kke ekÖ;k eukoj gksoqu R;kpk rku iMr vlY;keqGs eh ek>s ftou laior vkgs-”
7.Upon careful perusal of the
aforementioned contents of the suicide note,
it reveals that, Vithal Waghmare committed
suicide on 22nd August, 2016. It appears from
5283.16appln
9
the factual position brought on record that,
the present applicant was transferred on 31st
July, 2015, from Nanded to Yavatmal as
Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
Therefore, keeping in view the time gap
between the alleged incident and transfer of
the applicant from Nanded to Yavatmal, it is
not possible to hold that, the applicant
instigated, abetted or intentionally aided in
commission of the suicide by Waghmare.
8.At this juncture, it would be useful
to make a reference to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan
Singh V. State of Gujarat and anr.1 In said
case, the deceased therein was working as
driver under the Ex.Officer i.e. appellant
therein. The said driver allegedly committed
suicide due to harassment and insulting
behaviour by the appellant therein. He left
1 2010 AIR SCW 5101
5283.16appln
10
the suicide note alleging therein that, the
appellant therein asked the driver to keep
the keys of the vehicle on the table and not
to take away them. It was further stated
that, “I am going to commit suicide due to
his functioning style. Alone M.M. Singh,
D.E.T. Mcrowave Project is responsible for my
death. I pray humbly to the officers of the
department that you should not cooperate as
human being to defend M.M. Singh has acted in
breach of discipline disregarding the norms
of discipline. I humbly request the Enquiry
Officer that my wife and son may not be
harassed. My life has been ruined by M.M.
Singh.”
The Supreme Court in the facts of
aforesaid case, while explaining the scope of
Sections 306 and 294 vis-a-vis, the facts of
that case in para 9 held thus:-
5283.16appln
11
"It is absurd to even think that a
superior officer like the appellant
would intend to bring about suicide of
his driver and, 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,thereisspecific
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."
5283.16appln
12
In the facts of the present case
also, there is no nexus between so called
suicide and any of the alleged acts on the
part of the applicant. There is no proximity
either. Even if the allegations in the
suicide note are read in its entirety, the
same would not even remotely suggest that,
the applicant abetted, intentionally aided or
instigated in an alleged suicide by Vithal
Waghmare.
9.The Supreme Court in the case of
S.S. Chheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
another2, in para 25 observed that, the
abetment involves mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
2 (2010) 12 SCC 190
5283.16appln
13
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 IPC 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 committed suicide.
10.We have carefully scrutinized the
documents placed on record, in the light of
the settled legal position, we are of the
opinion that, further continuation of the
investigation/proceedings on the basis of the
F.I.R. bearing Crime no. 136 of 2016
registered with Vajirabad Police Station,
Nanded under section 306 of the Indian Penal
5283.16appln
14
Code qua the applicant would be abuse of
process of law. Hence the same is quashed and
set aside. The application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause `B' and the same
stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
sga
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are made out against the applicant based on the suicide note.
Whether there is a nexus or proximity between the applicant's acts and the deceased's suicide.
Whether continuation of the investigation would amount to abuse of process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Singh V. State of Gujarat and anr.Applied¶8
Madan Mohan Singh V. State of Gujarat and anr. 2010 AIR SCW 5101 · Who else cites this
S.S. Chheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan and anotherApplied¶9
S.S. Chheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dadarao S/o Hausaji Dakore
The State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector, Police Station Vajirabad
Gangadhar S/o Sakharam Shinde
S.S. Shinde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court