Allowed

Venkat S/O. Ramji Dabade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2019APPLN/283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought the quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 306, 323, and 506 alleging abetment to suicide. The High Court allowed the application, holding that the deceased's own misconduct regarding a love-jail rape allegation evidenced no intent by the applicants to cause suicide.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; Rule made absolute quashing the FIR registered at Police Station Mukhed with regard to the applicants.

Venkat S/O. Ramji Dabade and Others Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.283 OF 2019

¶3

1. Venkat s/o Ramji Dabade, Age : 42 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Dabde Shirur, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded

¶4

2. Ankush @ Babu s/o Ramji Dabade, Age : 48 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Dabde Shirur, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded

¶5

3. Siddeshwar s/o Shamrao Pandhare, Age : 26 years, Occu. Private Job, R/o Khupsangi, Tq. Mangalvedha, District Solapur APPLICANTS VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Mukhed, District Nanded

¶7

2. Bandu s/o Govind Kundgir, Age : 45 years, occu. Agri., R/o Dabde Shirur, Tq. Mukhed, RESPONDENTS District Nanded (Respondent No.2 is orig. informant)

¶8

----

¶9

Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.S. Kale, Advocate holding for Mr.S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ----

¶10

CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶11

DATE :19th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶12

criapln283-2019

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT (PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.):

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with

¶16

the consent of learned counsels for the parties, heard
finally.

¶17

2.This application is filed for the relief of
quashing the FIR registered at C.R. No.342 of 2018 with
Police Station, Mukhed, District Nanded for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 323, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).
The said crime is registered on the basis of a report
given by respondent No.2 namely Bandu Govind Kundgir on
20th November, 2018. In the report, he has made
allegations that on 19th November, 2018, when his son
Sandip was returning from Mukhed to the village, he was
beaten by the present applicants by fists and kicks on
account of old dispute. It is alleged that the
applicants gave threats to deceased Sandip that they
would blacken his face, move him in necked condition in
the village and would destroy his entire family. This
incident was allegedly witnessed by the informant’s
brother Uddhav Govind Kundgir and one Namdeo Dnyanoba

¶18

criapln283-2019

¶19

¶20

Devade. The incident is stated to have taken place at
about 6.00 p.m. According to the informant, after the
incident, deceased Sandip did not return to home. When
search was taken by the informant and his brother
Hanumant Govind Kundgir, they noticed that Sandip had
committed suicide in the field of one Dhanaji Pawar by
hanging himself to a neem tree. No suicide note is left
behind by the deceased.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the applicants took
this Court through the record of previous dispute. The
said record contains the report given by present
applicant No.2 Ankush @ Babu s/o Ramji Dabade to Police
Station, Mukhed on 6th March, 2017 wherein he had made
allegations against deceased Sandip that he was after
the daughter of applicant No.2 Ankush. It was alleged
that on 2nd March, 2017, his daughter was kidnapped by
deceased Sandip and others by forcibly taking her away
in a four wheeler. On the basis of the said report,
crime was initially registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366A read with Section 34
of IPC against Sandip and others. During the
investigation, the girl was traced out and her statement
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came

¶22

criapln283-2019

¶23

¶24

to be recorded. In her statement, she disclosed that
when she had been to the school to collect hall-ticket
of her 10th standard examination, Sandip intercepted her
on the road. According to her, at that time, Sandip
told her that he wanted to marry her and when she
refused therefor, she was forcibly taken away in a
vehicle. It was alleged that the relatives of Sandip
had helped him to go to Pune with the daughter of Ankush
and there, in a guesthouse, she was raped. As the crime
was registered on the basis of report given by the
father of the girl, she was brought back to the village
and then Sandip came to be arrested. The record shows
that the case came to be filed against Sandip and others
for the aforesaid offences and for the offence
punishable under Section 376 (2) of the IPC. The
evidence of the girl came to be recorded on 9th July,
2018 and she stuck to her version. Thus, on the date of
the incident involved in the present proceeding, the
case was part-heard and there were the aforesaid
circumstances.

¶25

4.The submissions made and the record show that

¶26

the marriage between the daughter of applicant No.2 and
applicant No. 3 – Siddeshwar Pandhare was performed

¶27

criapln283-2019

¶28

¶29

subsequent to the aforesaid incident. Applicant No.3
Siddeshwar is resident of district Solapur; however, he
is also shown to be involved in the present case. There
is nothing on record, except the interested versions of
two witnesses, to show that some incident did take place
in which Sandip was beaten.

¶30

5.The aforesaid circumstances show that Sandip
was at fault due to which, even a Sessions Case was
filed against him and his relatives and in that case,
the victim girl had given evidence against him. These
circumstances are sufficient to infer that there was no
reason for the applicants to intercept Sandip and

¶31

assault him. They were following the procedure
prescribed by law. Sandip has not left behind any
suicide note. Even if it is presumed that some incident
of assault had taken place, which does not seem to be
probable, it cannot be inferred that there was intention
of the applicants that Sandip should commit suicide. It
will be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are
asked to face the trial for the offence of abetment to
suicide. In the result, the following order.

¶32

criapln283-2019

¶33

¶34

6.The Criminal Application is allowed in terms of

¶35

prayer clause (C). Rule is made absolute in those

¶36

terms.

¶37

[S.M. GAVHANE]
JUDGE

¶38

[T.V. NALAWADE]

¶39

 JUDGE

¶40

npj/criapln283-2019

Venkat S/O. Ramji Dabade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkat S/O. Ramji Dabade 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

Mujtaba Khan S/O. Liyayat Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj S/O. Sheshrao Ranveer and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rekha W/O. Bhausaheb Jare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramnarayan S/O. Dashrath Bahekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sayyed Noor Sayyed Ibrahim (C-8658) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhaskar Patil (C-54) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others