Partly allowed

Kachru S/O. Laxman Dabhade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2018APPLN/766/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application for quashing of an FIR alleging abetment to suicide, the High Court allowed the application for three applicants but held others out due to conflicting police statement despite withdrawal of former group.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted to Applicants 1, 4 and 5; application of Applicants 2 and 3 disposed of as withdrawn.

Kachru S/O. Laxman Dabhade and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 766 OF 2018

¶5

1.	Kachru S/o Laxman Dabhade, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, R/o Panchavati Housing Society, Satara Parisar, Near Ujwalatai Pawar School, Aurangabad, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2.	Shilabai W/o Kachru Dabhade, Age 47 years, Occu. Household, R/o as above.
3.	Prakash S/o Kachru Dabhade, Age 30 years, Occu. Driver, R/o as above.
4.	Akash S/o Kachru Dabhade, Age 28 years, Occu. Nil, R/o as above.
5.	Ashwini W/o Sandeep Ambhore, Age 26 years, Occu. Household, R/o Vijaylaxmi Apartment, Flat No.5, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.	...APPLICANTS (Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 5)
	V E R S U S
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Satara, Aurangabad, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2.	Pradeep S/o. Jijabhau Ambhore, Age 39 years, Occ. Business,

¶6

¶7

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶8

R/o House No.4-9-1253, Baudha Nagar, Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. N. T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. A. S. Bayas, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & K. L. WADANE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 08^th August, 2018.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

both the sides for final disposal.

¶15

2 The proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of FIR No.352 of 2017, registered with Satara Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

3 Both the sides are heard.

¶17

¶18

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶19

4 Papers of investigation were made available.

¶20

5 The crime is registered on the basis of report given by

¶21

one Pradeep Ambhore. Deceased Sandeep Ambhore was real brother of the first informant. Sandeep committed suicide by hanging himself in his house on 23^rd May, 2017. In the FIR, allegations are made against the Applicants that just before the incident, they had harassed Sandeep, they had insulted Sandeep, they had beaten Sandeep and due to that no alternative was left before Sandeep then

¶22

to commit suicide. Some incidents are mentioned in which the Applicants were involved.

¶23

6 Applicant No.5 is the widow of deceased Sandeep. Applicant No.1 is the father of Applicant No.5. Applicant No.2 is the mother of Applicant No.5 and Applicants Nos.3 and 4 are real brothers of Applicant No.5.

¶24

7 It is contended that due to harassment, deceased Sandeep had made disclosure that he was fed up and he wanted to put an end his life. On 22^nd May, 2017, Sandeep had visited the house of the parents of Applicant No.5 to see Applicant No.5 and his

¶25

¶26

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶27

children. Allegations are made that in the house of the parents of Applicant No.5, Sandeep was assaulted and insulted. It is contended that he returned to home in dejected condition and he expressed that he wanted to commit suicide. Allegations are made that after some time Applicant No.2 mother of Applicant No.5 and Applicant No.3 Prakash, a brother of Applicant No.5 came to the house of Sandeep and on the night time they picked up quarrel with Sandeep and also with mother of Sandeep and they assaulted both Sandeep and his mother. Allegations are made that Sandeep first went to police on that night, gave report and after returning to home from police station on 23^rd May, 2017 at about 12:45 pm, he first made phone call to his friend Macchindra Mali and informed that he was takings such step and all the Applicants need to be held responsible for such step. It is contended that he then contacted Applicant No.5 on mobile phone and informed that he was taking such step but he had made arrangement of money for his issues.

¶28

8 Submissions made and papers of investigation show that there is no record of telephone conversation between deceased on one hand and Macchindra Mali on other. Similarly, no record is

¶29

¶30

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶31

collected to show that Applicant No.5 had talked with Sandeep just before the incident in question. However, there is record like N.C. recorded under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it shows that Sandeep had informed to police that on the night between 22^nd May, 2017 and 23^rd May, 2017 at about 00:10 hours, brother-inlaw of Sandeep and his mother-in-law had been to his house, they had picked up quarrel and they had assaulted not only Sandeep, but his mother also. They were Applicant Nos.2 and 3. After that, Sandeep committed suicide. Though there are allegations as against the remaining Applicants, there is a record in the form of last disclosure made by Sandeep of aforesaid nature. In view of these circumstance, this Court holds that relief can be granted to Applicant Nos.1, 4 and 5, but not to Applicant Nos.2 and 3. The learned counsel for Applicant Nos.2 and 3 submitted that he is withdrawing their application. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

I. The application of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 (Shilabai and Prakash) is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged in respect of Applicant Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

¶35

914 Application 766 of 2018.odt

¶36

II. The application of Applicant Nos.1, 4 and 5 (Kachru, Akash and Ashwini) is allowed. Relief is granted to them in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶37

III. Rule is made absolute in those terms in respect of Applicant Nos.1, 4 and 5.

¶38

[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶39

ndm

Kachru S/O. Laxman Dabhade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kachru S/O. Laxman Dabhade and Others 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

Vikram Kisan Gadekar and Ors. Vs Shivganga Alias Gauri Vikram Gadekar and Anr.

Dinesh Kanya Pawra Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bhagvat @ Bhagwant S/O Madhav Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shankar S/O. Rustumrao Khupse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagwan S/O. Govindrao Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nandkumar Vitthal Ghumare Vs the I.O. Patoda P.S. and Ors.