Pooja D/O Dattatray Shinde Alias, Pooja W/O Kiran Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

¶1

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:17180-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.274 OF 2021

¶5

Pooja d/o Dattatray Shinde alias Pooja w/o Kiran Jadhav Age: 22 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Vijay Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad. .. Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, City Chowk Police Station, At Aurangabad. 2. Harnabai w/o Dilip Jadhav Age: 45 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Goshegaon, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna, at present Maliwada, in the house of Shamrao Raut. .. Respondents ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2021 Datta Bapurao Waghmare Age: 48 years, Occu.: Private Service, R/o. Gat No.33/01, Plot No.133, Malhar Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Near Mukundwadi Railway Station, Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad. .. Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Harnabai Dilip Jadhav Age: 45 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Goshegaon, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna. .. Respondents … WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.275 OF 2021

¶6

[1]

¶7

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶8

Harishchandra w/o Punjaji Shinde Age: 75 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶9

Dattatray s/o Harishchandra Shinde Age: 48 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶10

Shubham s/o Anil Borade Age: 24 years, Occu.: Student, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶11

Balaji s/o Dattatray Shinde Age: 20 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶12

Sangita w/o Dattatray Shinde Age: 41 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Vijay Chowk, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.

¶13

Radha w/o Yogesh Hazare, Age: 24 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. C/o. Pravin Katariya, In front of Asha Niwas, Chelipura, Sardar Patel Road, Aurangabad. .. Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, City Chowk Police Station, At Aurangabad.

¶16

Harnabai w/o Dilip Jadhav Age: 45 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Goshegaon, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna, At present Maliwada, In the house of Shamrao Raut.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Mr. R. R. Kakani, Advocate for the applicants in all the applications. Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for respondent No.1/State in all the applications. Ms. Pooja K. Apache, Advocate for respondent No.2 (Appointed) in all the applications.

¶19

[2]

¶20

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶21

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶22

DATE : 02 JULY 2025

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

. Present applications have been filed initially for quashing the FIR vide Crime No.495 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad and later on, by way of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in Charge-Sheet No.6 of 2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. R. Kakani for the applicants in all the applications, learned APP Mr. V. K. Kotecha for respondent No.1/State in all the applications and learned Advocate Ms. Pooja K. Apache, who is appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2 in all the applications.

¶26

Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant in Criminal Application No.274 of 2021 is the wife of deceased Kiran, who was the son of informant/respondent No.2. Applicant in Criminal Application No.244 of 2021 is the father-in-law of deceased Kiran. Applicants in Criminal Application No.275 of 2021 are either the

¶27

[3]

¶28

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶29

distant relatives of wife of deceased Kiran or connected to the family of the father-in-law. It is not in dispute that the applicant Pooja got married to Kiran about one and half years prior to the FIR. The informant has stated that she was residing with Kiran and Pooja. There used to be quarrels between Pooja and Kiran, as applicant Shubham Borade used to come to their house. Shubham Borade is used to be the disciple of some Guru to whom Pooja was following. It is alleged that applicant Pooja used to insult deceased Kiran stating that he is impotent. She further states that due to the dispute, Pooja went to stay with her parents at Aurangabad and was not ready for returning for cohabitation. There were attempts to bring her for cohabitation, however, in presence of the relatives from both sides, applicant Pooja reiterated the insulting words to deceased Kiran. Her relatives also told that they will not send Pooja for cohabitation. Therefore, Kiran had issued notice for cohabitation through Advocate to Pooja, however, she had not resumed the cohabitation. The informant then states about the alleged expression by deceased Kiran around 6.00 a.m. of 12.09.2020 to her stating that he has lend amount of R.5,00,000/- for purchasing house to the parents of Pooja. Pooja is insulting him on the ground of alleged impotency and therefore, he is not feeling that he should live. He was feeling that he should commit suicide and end his life. At that time, informant persuaded him that there will be resumption of their cohabitation. He should keep

¶30

[4]

¶31

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶32

hope and then the informant went for work. Thereafter, when informant gave phone call to Kiran around 10.30 a.m., he told that he was proceeding for his work. Informant was suspecting and, therefore, she returned to home from work and found that door was closed from inside. She called Kiran, but he had not opened the door, but with the help of neighbouring persons when the door was broken, she found that Kiran had hanged himself. He had left a suicide note.

¶33

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that even after perusing the suicide note, it can be seen that though he is framing the applicants, yet the applicants were never in contact with Kiran since last 7-8 months prior to 12.09.2020. There is delay in lodging the FIR and, therefore, when the ingredients of the offences are not made out, it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial.

¶34

Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, who has been appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2, in the event of failure on the part of respondent No.2 to appear, objected the application and submitted that when the suicide note has been found and the entire evidence is now over, it would show that the present applicants had abetted the commission of suicide by Kiran. In the suicide note, there is a mention of about lending money as well as giving mental torture to him by the

¶35

[5]

¶36

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶37

applicants. Statements of witnesses would also show that the relatives have taken efforts for resolving the dispute and, therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38

Since the contents of the FIR are already reflected, we do not want to reproduce the same, however, taking into consideration the entire charge-sheet, it is now required to be seen as to whether there is a prima facie case made out for taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. For that purpose, we would like to rely on the decision of this Court in Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328 , and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cri.L.J. 2796; Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.) ., Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3351 , wherein the law has been made clear. In

¶39

[6]

¶40

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶41

Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (supra), this Court, relying upon the catena of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that it is necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and in the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

Taking into consideration the legal position, we are now required to consider the facts. From the contents of the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses, it can be seen that applicant Pooja – wife of Kiran and Kiran were not residing together since last about 7-8 months prior to the suicide. There is no dispute as regards the fact that Kiran had hanged himself and committed suicide. This can also be seen from the inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and the postmortem reports. In order to bring the case under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid, the active abetment is necessary, but there is no such material on record to show that within the said period of 7-8 months prior to 12.09.2020, the applicants, especially, Pooja had contacted Kiran and insulting treatment was given to him. There is no record to show that when the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given by Kiran to his in-laws. A very vague statement has been made in the FIR as well as in the suicide note. The suicide

¶43

[7]

¶44

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶45

note does not bears the date, but at this stage we take the suicide note as it is, which reads thus :-

¶46

“eh fdj.k tk/ko] iqtk f’kans & jk/kk gtkjs] Lkaxhrk f’kans] ckykth f’kans vkf.k ‘kqHke cksjkMs] nRrk=; f’kans] gjhpanz f’kans] nRrk ok?kekjs ;k yksdkaeqGs eyk ekufld =kl >kyk & ek.kfld =kl [kqi fnyk] ek#.k Vkd.;kph /kedh Ik.k fnyh & vkf.k ek>s iSls Ik.k nsr ukgh- 5 yk[k vkgs ek>s R;kaP;kdMs iSls ekxhrys dh /kedh nsrkr ;k lxG~;k yksdkaP;k nckok[kkyh eh vkRegR;k djrks; ek>;k vkRegR;kP;k ikBhekxs QDr f’kans ijhokj ftEesnkj vkgs vkf.k ek>;k vkbZyk frps iSls okil djkos-”

¶47

English translation of the above suicide note is as under :-

¶48

“Myself Kiran Jadhav, I was harassed mentally by these Pooja Shinde, Radha Hajare, Sangita Shinde, Balaji Shinde and Shubham Borade, Dattatraya Shinde, Harschandra Shinde, Datta Waghmare. They tortured me mentally a lot. They even threatened to kill me and even not ready to give my money back. They have (to give me) my 5 lakh rupees. When I asked for money (given), they threatened me. I am committing suicide under the pressure of all these people. The Shinde family is only responsible for my suicide. My mother should be given back her money.”

¶49

(Translated by Senior Translator and Interpreter, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

¶50

8. Thus, it is to be noted that he is using words ekufld =kl, but the

¶51

acts responsible for the mental harassment have not been stated. It is

¶52

[8]

¶53

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶54

also stated that he was given threat to kill. First of all, when he was the husband of Pooja and still the relationship was intact and also the fact that as alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was due from the in laws, why they would kill him would be the second question. When that incident had taken place cannot be gathered. Therefore, the suicide note does not quote any such incident which had happened in the proximity of the suicide. In other words, there are no such activities which are brought on record which were committed by the accused persons in the proximity i.e. just prior to the suicide of Kiran, which would have amounted to abetment. The charge-sheet also gives copy of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Kiran i.e. Hindu Marriage Petition No.128 of 2020 filed before the Family Court, Aurangabad on 18.03.2020. So he had taken legal steps for the resumption of the cohabitation. Perusal of the entire petition would show that he had not made a statement that he was mentally harassed by making allegations about impotency. He has given different reasons for which he has stated that the wife was not resuming the cohabitation.

¶55

The statements of witnesses are of course supporting the FIR, however, even the witnesses have not stated as to whether within the said period of 7-8 months, any overt act was done by any of the applicants including the wife, which would amount to abetment as contemplated under Section 109 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. With

¶56

[9]

¶57

16-appln-274-2021 + 1.odt

¶58

this material, it would be an abuse of process of law, if the applicants are allowed to face the trial and, therefore, this is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the following order :-

¶59

ORDER

¶60

I) All the Criminal Applications are allowed.

¶61

II) The FIR vide Crime No.495 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad and the proceedings in Charge-Sheet No.6 of 2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, stand quashed and set aside as against the present applicants in the respective applications.

¶62

III) Fees of learned Advocate, who is appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2 in all the matters, is quantified at Rs.5,000/- in each matter i.e. Rs.15,000/- in total, to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

¶63

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶64

scm

¶65

[10]

Pooja D/O Dattatray Shinde Alias, Pooja W/O Kiran Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja D/O Dattatray Shinde Alias, Pooja W/O Kiran Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Babasaheb Sonawane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Humera Jabeen W/O. Jalil Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aksahy Navnath Khatavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Datta Bapurao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harishchandra Punjaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suraj Balaji Salunke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another