Allowed

Karishma Purushottam Rasekar and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ballarshah Dist. Chandrapur

Bombay HC14 Jun 2022APL/973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR in abetment of suicide case. Court held allegations of domestic discord and harassment did not amount to instigation or conspiracy under Section 306 IPC as illegal acts were not proven consistently or intentionally.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the FIR, investigation, and chargesheet filed against the applicants.

Karishma Purushottam Rasekar and Another Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

apl973.2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.973/2021

¶5

Karishma Purushottam Rasekar, A/a 25 Yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o C/o Raghunath R. Urkude, Shiv Nagar, Ward No.2 Rampur Rajura, Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶6

Smita Abaji Aglawe, A/a 27, Occ. Housewife, R/o C/o Raghunath R. Urkude, Shiv Nagar, Ward No.2 Rampur Rajura, ...

¶7

Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur. Applicants. - Versus -

¶8

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer Police Station Ballarshah, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶9

Roshan Devidas Rasekar, aged 22 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Dharampeth, Zenda Chowk, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur. Alternate Address: C/o Abhay Ganesh Choudhari, Amrai Ward, behind Indira School Rajura, Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur. Office Address: Roshan Dewidas Rasekar HDFC Bank Rajura, Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur. ... Non-applicants.

¶10

2 apl973.2021

¶11

Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1 / State.

¶12

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND G.A. SANAP, JJ. DATE : 14.6.2022

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶14

Heard. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶15

Heard finally by consent.

¶16

Offence punishable under Section 306 read with

¶17

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicants on the basis of a suicidal note left behind by deceased Pankaj, husband of applicant No.1. Applicant No.2 is sister of applicant No.1. In this suicide note, deceased Pankaj noted that these applicants were responsible for his suicidal death.

¶18

3 apl973.2021

¶19

He wrote nothing more in this suicide note. For the sake of

¶20

convenience the suicide note, which is in Hindi, is reproduced

¶21

thus:-

¶22

“eS iadt jklsdj mQZ iq#”kksRre esjs ejus dkj.k esjh felsl mldk uke fl

¶23

eS iadt jklsdj mQZ iq#”kksRre esjs ejus ds ckn esjk HkkbZ jks’ku jklsdj mudks M;qVh feyus dks gksuk-

¶24

esjs ejusdk dkju esjh felsl mldh cgu fLerk vkxykos mlds dkj.k ejk- ”

¶25

The statement of Roshan, brother of the deceased,

¶26

only says that there was some difference of opinion between deceased and the applicant No.1 and the deceased was of the opinion that applicant No.2 was often encouraging her sister - applicant No.1 for quarrelling with the deceased. Then, Roshan stated that since applicant No.1 harassed his brother Pankaj from time to time, Pankaj was fed up and committed suicide. The particular acts of harassment having been given by applicant No.1 to her deceased husband have not been stated by Roshan. Statement of Ranjana also shows that there was some

¶27

4 apl973.2021

¶28

disagreement on account of domestic reasons between applicant No.1 and deceased. It further shows that on some occasions, applicant No.1 did not obey commands of the deceased or refused to accede to the request of the deceased. Such disagreement and discord between applicant No.1 and deceased and some sort of alleged indiscipline on the part of applicant No.1 has been considered by Ranjana, the sister of the deceased, as constituting harassment to the deceased, at the hands of applicant No.1, which was the reason for commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶29

Now, if we consider the well settled law, we would find that the aforestated acts attributed to applicant Nos.1 and 2 do not, in any manner, constitute instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. There was no conspiracy hatched between applicant Nos.1 and 2 to consistently harass the deceased nor there was any intentional aiding by both the applicants to deceased Pankaj with a view to see that deceased Pankaj commits suicide. All the aforestated allegations revolve around the

¶30

5 apl973.2021

¶31

concept of instigation as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. But, in order to constitute an act of instigation in law, it is necessary that it must be done consistently and intentionally to compel the deceased to take an extreme step so that deceased would put an end to his own life. Such is not the case here even when the allegations made by the brother and sister of deceased are taken at their face value and accepted as they are.

¶32

As regards suicide note, we must say that mere allegation that applicants are responsible for suicidal death of Pankaj is not enough. Specific allegations and details of the acts of harassment are required to be set out in a document, which is capable of being used as a statement admissible in evidence in accordance with Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such is also not the case here.

¶33

6 apl973.2021

¶34

In view of the above, we find that no offence of abetment of suicide has been made out in any manner and, therefore, the F.I.R. filed, the investigation made and chargesheet filed in the present case against the applicants deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶35

The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (1)

¶36

and (2).

¶37

Tambaskar.

¶38

Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO TAMBASKAR Private Secretary Signing Date:15.06.2022 17:05

Karishma Purushottam Rasekar and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ballarshah Dist. Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karishma Purushottam Rasekar and Another v. the State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ballarshah Dist. Chandrapur

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

Abdul Raheman Abdul Bashir Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Home Department (Prison), Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32 and 2 Othr

Vinod S/O Vitthal Varabhe @ Telya Vinyababa Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Pulgaon Dist.Wardha and Another

State of Mah.Thr. Pso Ps Akot Gramin Dist.Akola Vs Firoz Khan Akbar Khan and 3 Others

Yudhisthir S/O Vyankatrao Masodkar and 5 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ajani Police Station, Ajni, Dist. Nagpur and Another

Shila W/O Panjabrao Tajne Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and 3 Others

Shri Chandrashekar Gulab Puri and Another Vs State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and 6 Others