Hussain Iqbal Patel and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the applicants challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the discharge application at Exhibit 11 in Sessions Case No. 409 of 2017 came to be rejected. The said case arises out of Crime Register No. 37 of 2017 registered with Kurla Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The Applicant No.1 is the husband of the deceased, Ameera Hussain Patel. Applicant No.2 is the mother of Applicant No.1. Applicants No.4 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of Applicant No.1. Applicants No.3 and 5 are the brothers of Applicant No.1.

¶15

1

¶16

13 REVN 3-25.doc

¶17

The complainant, Respondent No.2, Ammar Wajidali Ansari, is the brother of the deceased. His allegation is that his sister Ameera was married to Applicant No.1, Hussain Iqbal Patel, on 24.08.2003. According to him, within four months of marriage, Ameera’s in-laws, including Applicant Nos.4 and 6, started harassing her, restrained her from visiting her parental house, and restricted her movements. It is further alleged that since Ameera could not conceive, she was subjected to taunts by Applicant Nos.4 and 5 and their wives, stating that she was infertile and that her husband’s property would be of no use as she had no children. It is also alleged that Ameera desired to live with her husband in Dubai, but she was compelled to stay with her mother-in-law, who forced her to do household chores. It is alleged that whenever Applicant No.1 visited Mumbai, he used to abuse and assault her. The complainant states that whenever these incidents were narrated to him and other family members, they assured Ameera that they would lodge a police complaint, but Ameera herself stopped them from taking any such action.

¶18

It is further alleged that on 31.01.2017, at about 3.00 p.m., one Maulana Istiyak informed the complainant’s father that Ameera’s mother-in-law had called him saying that Ameera had locked herself inside the bedroom for nearly four hours and was not responding. Ameera’s parents and her sister Nahid immediately rushed to her matrimonial home. After breaking open the door, they found Ameera hanging from the ceiling fan with a dupatta. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the spot. The brother-in-law of the deceased informed the police, and on the

¶19

2

¶20

13 REVN 3-25.doc

¶21

basis of the complainant’s statement, the FIR came to be lodged.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the prosecution material does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to the witness statements, he argued that no witness has specifically narrated any act of harassment or cruelty nor has any incident of such nature been disclosed which can be termed as proximate cause for the deceased to take the extreme step of ending her life. He emphasized that the marriage between the deceased and Applicant No.1 took place in August 2003, whereas the unfortunate incident of suicide occurred in January 2017, almost fourteen years later. He submitted that at best, the prosecution story indicates that Ameera was not taken to Dubai, but such circumstance by itself does not fulfill the requirement of abetment under Section 306 of the Penal Code. He therefore urged that the applicants ought to have been discharged.

¶23

In reply, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the material on record clearly indicates that the deceased was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the applicants. He argued that the conduct of the applicants in not informing the parental family of the deceased immediately after the incident and instead informing the watchman raises strong suspicion. He submitted that such conduct, along with the allegations of cruelty, shows that Ameera was driven to such a situation where she found no other option but to commit suicide. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present Revision Application.

¶24

3

¶25

13 REVN 3-25.doc

¶26

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine whether the material produced by the prosecution, if taken at its face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court is not expected to weigh the sufficiency of evidence or enter into a roving enquiry. What is required is a prima facie satisfaction that the basic ingredients of the offence exist.

¶27

In the present case, the offence alleged is under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence under Section 306, there must be material to show that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by instigating, aiding, or intentionally driving the deceased to end her life. For an offence under Section 498-A, there must be material to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty of such nature as defined in the explanation to the section.

¶28

The marriage between Applicant No.1 and the deceased took place in the year 2003. The deceased committed suicide in January 2017, that is, almost fourteen years after the marriage. The statements of witnesses placed on record do not disclose any proximate incident of harassment or cruelty immediately preceding the suicide. Allegations that the deceased was taunted for not conceiving or that she was not taken to Dubai do not, by themselves, constitute abetment to suicide. There is no material to indicate that any of the applicants had either instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to take her life.

¶29

4

¶30

13 REVN 3-25.doc

¶31

It is also pertinent to note that the allegations are of a general nature and spread over a long period of time. No specific incident has been pointed out which could be said to be the immediate cause for the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of such material, continuation of the trial against the applicants would amount to subjecting them to unnecessary harassment and abuse of process of law.

¶32

In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding the commission of the act. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the deceased to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained. A word uttered in a fit of anger or general harassment, without any intention to drive the person to suicide, would not amount to abetment.

¶33

Similarly, in Prakash and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Criminal) No. 1073 of 2023, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases of suicide, there must be evidence of direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that if the allegations are vague and there is no proximate cause connecting the alleged cruelty to the act of suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

¶34

The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application for discharge, has failed to consider these vital aspects. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

¶36

5

¶37

13 REVN 3-25.doc

¶38

The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the discharge application in Sessions Case No. 409 of 2017 is set aside. The applicants stand discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.R. No. 37 of 2017 registered at Kurla Police Station.

¶39

Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶40

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶41

6

Hussain Iqbal Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain Iqbal Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Dr Hemal Siddharth Mehta vs State of Maharashtra through Office of Public Prosecutor

Nihar Bhalchandra Belosay vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkumar Gopal Raghuveer and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tata Capital Limited vs Taj Traders

Tulsi Sureshbhai Darji and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Deputy Registrar Cooptive Societies and Anr.

Highland Gardens Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. Throu. Venkata Chalapathi Pasupuleti vs Addl Commissioner Co-Op Societies and Ors.