AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.G. Giratkar, J
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants have challenged the registration of crime by the respondent no. 1 on the report of the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the
respondent no. 2 lodged false report against the applicants stating that her husband was married with one Sangitabai. After death of Sangitabai, he
married with her. Her husband was prosecuted on the report of the father of first wife. After undergoing jail sentence, her husband was residing
with her. Her husband was having agriculture land about 4 Acres. His sisters Anusaya and Gumfabai were demanding their shares in the
agricultural land. On the day of incident, her husband committed suicide in the field. He left one chit stating that due to harassment of his sister
namely, Anusayabai, her husband and her son (all the applicants), he has committed suicide.
It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 lodged false report only to harass the applicants. They had no any role to instigate or abet deceased to
commit suicide. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are residing at Adsul, Tahsil Shegaon, District Buldana and the applicant no. 3 is residing at Tanaji
Nagar, Tahsil Shegaon, District Buldana whereas deceased and the respondent no. 2 are the residents of Bhanegaon, Tahsil Shegaon, District
Buldana. It is submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. The respondent no. 1 on the false report
of the respondent no. 2, registered wrong crime, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the first information report.
Heard learned counsel Shri S. V. Sirpurkar for the applicants. He has pointed out decision in the case of Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao and ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in 2016 ALL MR(Cri) 4328. It is alleged in the report that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 were demanding
partition in the ancestral land. It does not amount to any instigation or abetment. There was no any positive act on their part. At last, learned
counsel submitted that in view of the cited judgment, FIR registered against the applicants liable to be quashed and set aside.
Heard Ms. Jaipurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no. 1. She has supported the action of the respondent no. 1.
None appears for the respondent no. 2.
Perused the report. From the perusal of report, it is clear that none of the applicants were residing at the village of deceased. As per the
report, on the day of incident, deceased committed suicide in the field. It is alleged in the report that deceased left one chit in which it is written that
the applicants harassed him by demanding partition and, therefore, he has committed suicide. Even the contents of FIR is taken as it is, then also,
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Even the allegations in respect of demand of partition by the
applicants taken as it is, then also, it cannot be an abetment or instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. It is the legal right of the sisters to get
share in the ancestral property.
Even the chit of deceased is taken into consideration, then also, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be
attracted. In the case of Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.(cited supra), Division Bench of this Court has
observed as under.
“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.â€
The applicants were residing at their respective villages and not in the village of deceased. Thee is no allegation in the report that on the day of
incident or prior to it, applicants quarreled or threatened the deceased. Even the chit left by deceased is taken into consideration, then also, offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Continuation of proceedings would nothing but abuse of process of
Court. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, FIR is liable
to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (1) and quash and set aside F.I.R. No. 06/2017
registered by the respondent no. 1 against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.