AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.G. Giratkar, J
By way of present application, the applicant prays for quashing of FIR lodged by nonÂapplicant No.2 and registered by nonÂapplicant No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted that one Rupchand Sirsat, aged about 54 years was working as a Group Secretary in KherdaÂMozari CoÂoperative Society. On
04.04.2013, Rupchand has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance at village Ghota, Tq. Barshitakli, District Akola. He was in
the employment of society. The primary duty of Rupchand was of disbursement of loan by the CoÂoperative Bank and to recover the same. He
was in service since last 20 years. He left one suicide note dated 21.02.2013 and made allegations against the applicant and many other persons
including MPs and MLAs.
After the commission of suicide by Rupchand, his wife nonÂapplicant No.2 lodged report with nonÂapplicant No.1. Along with report, she had
given suicide note left by her deceased husband. On the basis of report and suicide note, Crime No. 51/2013 came to be registered for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station, Borgaon Manju, District Akola. It is submitted that
the applicant is nowhere concerned to abet the deceased for commission of suicide. Therefore, prayed to quash Crime No. 51/2013 registered by
nonÂapplicant No.1.
Heard Shri Ayush Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of nonÂapplicant No.1/State. None appears on behalf of nonÂapplicant No.2.
From the perusal of report, it appears that nonÂapplicant No.2 made allegation that the applicant and others mentally harassed her husband and,
therefore, he has committed suicide on 04.04.2013. From the perusal of suicide note, it appears that it was addressed to Police Station Officer,
Barshitakli. It is dated 21.02.2013. Thereafter, deceased applied for leave on 27.02.2013 and 01.04.2013, and on 04.04.2013, he has committed
suicide. It appears from the leave applications, dated 27.02.2013 and 01.04.2013, his physical and mental condition was not good. He has written
in his suicide note that his son had committed suicide. Â Therefore, he was mentally disturbed.
From the perusal of suicide note, it appears that applicant and others cannot be said to be abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, the
suicide note is dated 21.02.2013. Deceased has committed suicide on 04.04.2013. Deceased has committed suicide after two months from the
date of alleged suicide note. It appears from the contents of suicide note that he made allegations against many persons including MPs and MLAs.
If the report and suicide note taken as it is, then it is clear that applicant or others cannot be said to be abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Â
He has stated in his report that, “one Mendhe and others obtained loan from District Cooperative Bank, Akola. Mendhe was insisting him to
increase the number of cooperative societies. Because of the constant pressure of workload, he could not give attention in his household work and,
therefore, his son committed suicide.â€Â It appears from the contents that the deceased was mentally disturbed because of the death of his son.
This Court in the case of Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others .v. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Application No. 332 of 2016 Â decided
on 05Â Â th August, 2016) , has observed as under :Â
“12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with
an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to
instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that
there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the soÂcalled suicide note.
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 or 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.
 21. No doubt that the judiciary has lost one of its officers in any unfortunate incident. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
response of a person to a situation may differ from a person to person. A person, who is sensitive, may be hurt if the things do not happen as per his
wish and may unfortunately commit an act, which leads to his death. No doubt, our all sympathies are with the family of the Judicial Officer, who
lost his life in prime age. However, can that be said to be sufficient to prosecute the other Judicial Officers, for no fault of theirs. As already
discussed hereinabove, except applicant No.1, there is no even whisper in the affidavit of the nonÂapplicant No.2 insofar as the other applicants are
concerned. Even the allegations against the applicant No.1 are with regard to discharge of his official duties. As pointed out hereinabove, it
cannot also be a case of harassment inasmuch as the deceased was the junior most Judicial Officer in the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division and
transferring him out of the District headquarters to another place in the same district, cannot be said to be an act by the applicant No.1 causing
harassment to the deceased. If the deceased had any grievance against his superiors, it was always open for him to approach the learned Guardian
Judge of the District or Registry of this Court.â€
From the contents of report, it appears that the deceased was mentally disturbed due to the death of his son. He has made allegations against the
applicant and others two months before his suicide. Suicide Note is dated 21.02.2013. Thereafter, deceased proceeded on leave on 27.02.2013.
Again he applied for leave on 01.04.2013. Letter issued by Barshitakli Cooperative Society dated 22.02.2013 shows that charge of the post of
deceased was handed over to one Shinde. The reasons stated in the suicide note are not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant and other persons named in the suicide note cannot be said to be abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. From the face value of the report itself, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Haryana and others .v. Bhajanlal and others (reported in 1992 SCC (Cri)
426), crime registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
Hence, we are inclined to allow the application in terms of prayer clause (A). We hereby quash and set aside FIR dated 06.04.2013 (Crime No.
51/2013) registered by PSO, Borgaon Manju, District Akola for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.