Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1329 (BOM)

Santosh Nathumal Goenka v. State of Maharashtra

2009-10-06

R.Y.GANOO

body2009
Judgment :- 1. The applicants are facing trial, being Sessions Trial No. 1/2007 in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Akola under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has framed charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants on 18.04.2009. The applicants have approached this Court with a view to have the said order dated 18.04.2009, quashed and set aside and impliedly for quashing of charge sheet. 2. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this application are as under. Smt. Shobha Manmohan Khandelwal, the complainant happens to be wife of Manmohan Khandelwal. According to the prosecution, the said Manmohan Khandelwal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased’) committed suicide on 12.05.2006. Said Shobha filed First Information Report No. 107/2006 at Police Station, Kotwali, Akola against the present applicants and two others and based on that, investigation was carried out, charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian penal Code was filed in the Sessions Court, Akola and the learned Principal Sessions Judge has framed charge in the said sessions trial as mentioned aforesaid. 3. With the assistance of learned Advocates for both the sides, I have perused the charge-sheet. According to the complainant Shobha, the present applicants and two others had harassed the deceased on account of various money transactions and had even obtained certain cheques. As the said cheques got dishonoured, cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed. According to Shobha, on account of constant demands and other stand taken by the present applicants and two others, deceased felt harassed and committed suicide. It is seen that suicide note is recovered in the course of investigation. Perusal of the said note goes to show that the deceased was conscious of the various facts about his financial conditions and that he had reached the state-of-mind that suicide should be done. In the course of investigation, statements of son of the deceased namely Abhishek was recorded. Learned Advocate Mr. Kale had pointed out that that the statement of Abhishek goes to show that moneys, which were due and payable to the applicants and two others were already paid and thus the applicants and despite that two others were harassing the deceased. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Learned Advocate Mr. Kale had pointed out that that the statement of Abhishek goes to show that moneys, which were due and payable to the applicants and two others were already paid and thus the applicants and despite that two others were harassing the deceased. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar had submitted that even if the charge-sheet is taken as a whole, the acts alleged against the present applicants cannot be treated as having done with a view to abet commission of suicide. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar had submitted that if the present applicants felt that they were entitled to receive certain moneys and if they were demanding moneys from the deceased, the said demand by itself cannot be equated to abetment as understood in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar relied upon judgments in Manish Kumar Sharma ..vs.. State of Rajasthan 1995 CRI. L. J. 3066; Vedprakash Bhaiji ..vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh; 1995 CRI.L.J. 893; Pallem Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and ors. ..vs.. State of A.P.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor; 1997 (1) Crimes 499. The learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar submitted that reading of the aforesaid judgments would go to show that if a person from whom moneys are demanded, committed suicide, it cannot be said that the person, who demanded money has abeted commission of suicide. 6. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Kale submitted that if the applicants had not made demands from time to time, the deceased would not have committed suicide and, therefore, the overt act committed by the present applicants in the nature of persistent demands will have to be termed as abetment as understood under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the deceased appears to have been cornered by the present applicants and hence the deceased reached a state-of-mind that he should commit suicide. Mr. Kale further submitted that the overt acts of harassment will have to be treated as abetment. 7. After having considered the rival submissions, I am inclined to accept arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar. The charge-sheet, if considered in proper perspective, would go to show that according to the prosecution the present applicants and two others were demanding moneys from the deceased. It is stated in the suicide note that despite paying ten times of the amount borrowed, demands were being made from time to time. Mardikar. The charge-sheet, if considered in proper perspective, would go to show that according to the prosecution the present applicants and two others were demanding moneys from the deceased. It is stated in the suicide note that despite paying ten times of the amount borrowed, demands were being made from time to time. The question is whether such demands made from time to time would amount to abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and in my view the answer is in the negative. If according to the deceased he had paid substantial amount or amounts to the applicants and if the applicants were demanding moneys from him, it was open for the deceased to institute a criminal complaint either at the Police Station or to the Court in order to ventilate his grievances. Suicide could not be considered as answer to the said persistent demands. 8. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, persistent demands made by the person, who claim that they are entitled to recover moneys from any other person, cannot be equated to an overt act as understood in the Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, even if it is accepted for a moment on the basis of charge-sheet that demands were made by the present applicants with the deceased for moneys, those demands by itself will not amount to abetment within the meaning of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, consequently, the present applicants could not have been charge-sheeted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned Principal Sessions Judge missed the point as to what act would amount to abetment of suicide. Hence, framing of charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was not required and applicants should have been discharged. 10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of the present application. (a) Order dated 18.04.2009 below Exh.-83 in Sessions trial No. 1/2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola against the present applicants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, charge framed against the applicants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. (a) Order dated 18.04.2009 below Exh.-83 in Sessions trial No. 1/2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola against the present applicants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, charge framed against the applicants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. (b) Charge-sheet filed against the present applicants pursuant to First Information Report No. 107/2006 dated 26.05.2006 with City Kotwali Police Station, Akola is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds of applicants stand cancelled.