Allowed

Sanjay Bhalchandra Walsetwar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018APPLN/386/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal applications for quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC, alleging abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, were allowed. The court held that the deceased attributed his suicide to general frustration and loss due to multiple transactions, not specifically abetting by the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The two criminal applications for quashing of the FIR were allowed in terms of the prayer clause.

Sanjay Bhalchandra Walsetwar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1024 OF 2016

¶5

Balaprasad S/o Dwarkadas Mundada, Age : 51 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Sonpeth, Taluka – Sonpeth, District – Parbhani. ... APPLICANT

¶6

(Ori. Accused)

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani, Taluka Parbhani, District Parbhani.

¶9

2] Kedar S/o Subhashrao Walsetwar, Ori. Complainant Age : 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Sonpeth, Taluka – Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 386 OF 2016

¶12

1] Sanjay S/o Bhalchandra Walsetwar, Age : 41 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Sonpeth, Taluka – Sonpeth, District – Parbhani.

¶13

2] Santosh S/o Bhalchandra Walsetwar, Age : 36 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Sonpeth, Taluka – Sonpeth, District – Parbhani. ... APPLICANTS

(Ori. Accused)

V E R S U S

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶18

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani, Taluka Parbhani, District Parbhani. 2] Kedar S/o Subhashrao Walsetwar, Ori. Complainant Age : 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Sonpeth, Taluka – Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Applicants, in both the matters. Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP for Respondent No.1 / State, in both the matters. Mr. S. G. Rudrawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2, in both the mattes.

¶20

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 23^rd October, 2018.

¶22

JUDGMENT: ( Per T. V. Nalawade, J. )

¶23

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard

¶24

both the sides for final disposal.

¶25

2 Both the proceedings are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of FIR No.251 of 2015, registered with New Mondha Police Station, District Parbhani,

¶26

for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the

¶27

¶28

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶29

Indian Penal Code.

¶30

3 Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Respondent No.2. Deceased, Subhash was father of the first informant. He left home on 12^th October, 2015 at 09:30 am by saying that he was proceeding to Tridhara for having Darshan and after that he was not seen alive by the members of his family. After making some search, they gave missing report to police on 13^th October, 2015. On 15^th October, 2015, it was realized that deceased had booked Room No.209 in Rohit Inn Lodge of Parbhani and the door was in closed condition from inside. After receiving this information, everybody rushed to that lodge. After seeing the entry in register, the first informant and other relatives realized that the room was booked by their father. Then in the presence of police, door of the room was forcibly opened.

¶31

4 In that room, there was the dead body of Subhash and it was in decomposed condition. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body and it became clear that he had consumed poison to commit suicide. Police had already taken over suicide notes, many papers, which were found with the dead body. When the dead body

¶32

¶33

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶34

was found on 15^th October, 2015, first informant, Kedar approached police on 29^th October, 2015 and gave report.

¶35

5 This Court has gone through the papers of investigation. Applicants of Criminal Application No.386 of 2016 are nephews of the deceased and Applicant of Criminal Application No.1024 of 2016 was known to deceased and their names are given in suicide notes. It appears that on 12^th October, 2015, deceased wrote so many suicide notes addressed to his son, to Superintendent of Police, to PSI of Sonpeth Police Station, to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonpeth, to District Collector, to District Judge, to one Raosaheb Deshmukh, to one Sudhir Bindu reporter, to Tahsildar, to Ex-President of Municipal Council, to one Satishrao Deshmukh reporter, to Advocate Chaudhari of Gangakhed and to Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Sonpeth.

¶36

6 In all the suicide notes, he mentioned that he had no grievance against his family members including his son, but he has grievance against his nephews, Applicants. He was feeling that they were using black magic to harass him and they were harassing him and due to that he had taken the decision to commit suicide. He has mentioned that he had lost his house and his ration shop and he was

¶37

¶38

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶39

not able to take possession of those properties and due to that he was frustrated. He has mentioned that in Court he had given in writing and he had signed on compromise, but that was done due to pressure of his brother and nephews. He has mentioned that he had given Rs.14 lac to Balaprasad, Applicant of Criminal Application No.1024 of 2016 and this amount was not returned by Balaprasad and Balaprasad had duped him. He has mentioned that as there was nothing in writing, it was not possible for him to recover the money from Balaprasad. He has mentioned that he sustained loss in transaction made in respect of petrol pump. He has mentioned that he had sustained loss in transaction of purchase of two flats and he was deceived.

¶40

7 The submissions made and record show that in the year 2002, the dispute which was between the deceased and his brother was settled and in accordance with the compromise terms, decree was prepared by the Civil Court. The incident took place after about 14 years of the said compromise and there are allegations of aforesaid nature against the nephews. Admittedly, there is no record in respect of transaction with Balaprasad. It appears that the deceased was feeling that everybody had deceived him. It is not the

¶41

¶42

936 Applications 1024 & 386 of 2016.odt

¶43

contention of the son, who filed FIR that prior to recovery of suicide notes, there was any incident involving the Applicants of the two proceedings and the deceased like quarrel. It can be said that the deceased had sustained loss in many transactions and due to that he was frustrated. He has tried to blame the Applicants for the loss sustained by him. Even if those allegations are accepted as they are, they cannot make out offence of abetment of suicide. Thus, nothing can be achieved if the Applicants are made to face the trial for the

¶44

aforesaid offence. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

I. Both the applications are allowed.

¶47

II. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (C).

¶48

III. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

¶49

[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶50

ndm

Sanjay Bhalchandra Walsetwar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhalchandra Walsetwar and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asha W/O. Bhanudas Wadmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balaprasad S/O Dwarkadas Mundada Vs the Sate of Maharashtra

Shahid Aslam Gulam Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Khandu S/O Ravan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra