Dismissed

Aashabai W/O Madhukar Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2017APPLN/6349/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two criminal applications seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC regarding suicide. The High Court, finding proximate dates and sufficient material, held that quashing was inappropriate, directing applicants to seek discharge before the trial court instead.

What did the court decide?

Neither Criminal Application No.5558 of 2016 nor Criminal Application No.6349 of 2016 were allowed; the applications for quashing the FIR were rejected.

Aashabai W/O Madhukar Chavan Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cra5558.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5558 OF 2016

¶6

1) Subhash s/o Bansi Sonawane, Age-43 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶7

2) Kusumbai w/o Bansi Sonawane, Age-70 yeards, Occu:Household, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶8

3) Kishor s/o Ratan Nade, Age-45 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶9

4) Ujwala w/o Sukhlal Rajput (Dongarjal), Age-52 yeards, Occu:Household, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶10

5) Rekha w/o Ramchandra Rode, Age-35 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶11

6) Lalita w/o Gangaram Mhaske, (As per FIR Kalpana Mhaske), Age-32 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad, ...APPLICANTS

¶12

cra5558.16

¶13

¶14

 VERSUS

¶15

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Investigation Officer,
 Police Station Waluj,
 Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶16

2) Tara w/o Uttam Bhandari, Age-45 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj,

¶17

 Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

 ...
 Mr.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Public Prosecutor
 for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.M.B. Sandanshiv Advocate for Respondent
 No.2.

¶20

WITH

¶21

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6349 OF 2016

¶22

Ashabai w/o Madhukar Chavan,
Age-48 years, Occu:Household/ Labour,
R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj,
Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad.

¶23

...APPLICANTS

¶24

 VERSUS

¶25

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Investigation Officer,
 Police Station Waluj,
 Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶26

cra5558.16

¶27

¶28

2) Tara w/o Uttam Bhandari,
 Age-45 years, Occu:Household,
 R/o-Line Nagar, Waluj,

¶29

 Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

...

¶32

 Mr.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Public Prosecutor
 for Respondent No.1.

¶33

 Mr.M.B. Sandanshiv Advocate for Respondent
 No.2.

¶34

...

¶35

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

¶36

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT :24TH FEBRUARY,2017.

¶37

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 1ST MARCH, 2017.

¶38

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

¶39

1.Both these Applications are filed taking

¶40

exception to one and the same First Information
Report and hence these Applications are being
disposed of by this common Judgment and order.

¶41

2.Both these Applications are filed by the
Applicants praying therein to quash and set aside
the First Information Report No.153 of 2016

¶42

cra5558.16

¶43

¶44

registered at Police Station Waluj, Taluka-

¶45

Gangapur, District-Aurangabad for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶46

3.The learned counsel appearing for the
Applicants submits that the Applicants are falsely
implicated in the criminal case. They have not
committed any crime as alleged by the informant.
The Applicants are not the neighbourers of the
informant and on the day of the incident they were
not members of the Gram Panchayat. The Applicants

¶47

are just residents of the said vicinity but the
informant has falsely implicated them since they
have made signatures on the representation dated
18th June 2016 in respect of illegal construction.
It is submitted that the police were not inclined
to register the First Information Report, however
the informant kept the dead body of deceased Uttam
Bhandari in the police station and intimated that
unless the First Information Report is registered

¶48

cra5558.16

¶49

¶50

against the Applicants, she will not take the dead
body and perform the funeral. It is submitted that
upon reading allegations in the First Information
Report, ingredients of the alleged offences have
not been attracted and consequently alleged
offences are not disclosed against the Applicants.
It is submitted that the Applicants never
instigated or abetted or aided for commission of
suicide by the deceased Uttam Bhandari. He further

¶51

invites our attention to the grounds taken in the
Applications and submits that the Applications

¶52

deserve to be allowed. In support of his

¶53

contention that alleged offences are not disclosed
against the Applicants and therefore First
Information Report deserves to be quashed, the
learned counsel appearing for the Applicants,
placed reliance on the reported Judgments of the

¶54

Supreme Court, in the case of Madan Mohan Singh
vs. State of Gujarat and another1, State of Kerala

¶55

and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others2.

¶56

1 2010 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5101

¶57

2 (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 639

¶58

cra5558.16

¶59

¶60

the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants

¶61

in support of his submissions, also placed
reliance on the unreported Judgments of the Bombay
High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in the case of

¶62

Tushar s/o Mahadeorao Arsul vs. State of
Maharashtra and another (Criminal Application
No.3683 of 2012) decided on 26th November 2012

¶63

Mahesh s/o Shashikant Jape and others vs. the
State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal
Application No.4362 of 2015) decided on 11th
December 2015.

¶64

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State, relying on the

¶65

investigation papers and in particular statements
of various witnesses, submits that after
completion of investigation charge-sheet is filed

¶66

by the Investigating Officer. There is enough
material and trial can proceed on the basis of
said material, therefore this Court may not
consider the prayer of the Applicants to quash the

¶67

cra5558.16

¶68

¶69

First Information Report.

¶70

5.Learned counsel appearing for Respondent

¶71

No.2 invites our attention to the affidavit in

¶72

reply and submits that the Applicants consistently
harassed the deceased Uttam Bhandari and as a

¶73

result of harassment by them, deceased was not
left with any option but to commit suicide.
Therefore, he submits that Application may be
rejected.

¶74

6. We have heard the learned counsel

¶75

appearing for the parties at length. With their

¶76

able assistance we have perused the grounds taken

¶77

in the Applications, annexures thereto, reply
filed by Respondent No.2 and the investigation

¶78

papers made available for our perusal. These
Applications take exception only to the First
Information Report though the charge-sheet is

¶79

filed by the Investigating Officer as it is
apparent from the perusal of the investigation

¶80

cra5558.16

¶81

¶82

papers. We have carefully perused the allegations
in the First Information Report and the statements
of the witnesses. It appears that deceased Uttam
Bhandari was constructing a toilet nearby his
house. The Applicants went there and then further
altercations took place and Uttam Bhandari
committed suicide. The alleged acts attributed to
the Applicants and commission of suicide by Uttam
Bhandari is in proximate date and time. There are
statements of witnesses. We do not wish to enter
elaborately on merits of the matter since the
charge-sheet is filed before the concerned Court.

¶83

7.In that view of the matter, it may be

¶84

open for the Applicants to avail the appropriate
remedy of filing application for discharge before
the concerned Court in case charge is not framed
by the trial Court. Therefore, we are not inclined
to entertain the prayer of the Applicants for
quashing the First Information Report. In the
result, leaving open the remedy available to the

¶85

cra5558.16

¶86

¶87

Applicants to file application for discharge
before the concerned Court, we reject both these
Applications.

¶88

8.However, we make it clear that the

¶89

observations made herein above are prima facie in
nature and the concerned Court should not get
influenced by the said observations either while
considering the application for discharge or
during the trial, as the case may be.

¶90

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

¶91

asb/FEB17

Aashabai W/O Madhukar Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashabai W/O Madhukar Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rohini Dyneshwar Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakalabai Badrinath Hake and Others Vs Central Bank of India through Senior Branch Manager S D Joshi and Another

Ashok So Popat Thorve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

Manohar Chimaji Chalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others