Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2383 (BOM)

Deeksha Amit Bhandari v. State of Maharashtra

2012-12-19

K.U.CHANDIWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally. 2. The learned Counsel for the Police Officer (W.P. No. 1204 of 2011) submits that he has additional sets of documents to be pointed which he will not be able to canvass in a revision if directed to be preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune. Both the learned Counsel have placed reliance on the Judgment in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370: [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 234 (S.C.)]. The Respondent party in person narrated the facts and conveys that uncanny haste illegally carried by police in league with his wife, has caused injury to his father, culminating in his death. 3. The Petitioners question issuance of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cantonment, Pune dated 9th September, 2011 for offence under Sections 304, 123 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and additionally against the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1204 of 2011 for offence under Section 166 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The Petitioner No.1 (in W.P.1167 of 2011) Mrs. Deeksha married to Respondent No.2 Amit Bhandari at Delhi on 27th June, 2009. Petitioner No.2 Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chamanlal Sethi is her father while Petitioner No.3 Mrs. Meenakshi Ramesh Kumar Sethi is her mother. 5. The couple was residing initially at Bangalore. It is alleged that on 28th August, 2009 Smt. Deeksha Bhandari returned her parental house. She has thereafter, initiated proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code at North Rohini Police Station, New Delhi. Efforts were also made to reconcile the couple. However, did not yield results. On 10th Apri1, 2010 C.R. No.90 of 2010 was registered against Respondent No.2 husband of Mrs. Deeksha Bhandari, the events in prosecutions are out come of said CR 90 of 2010. 6. Notices were sent by the Police Officer under Section 160 of Cr. P.C. for appearance of Respondent No.2. Since Respondent No.2 did not respond, the Police Officer with the Petitioners accompanied by police concerned of the nearby Police Station at Pune visited the residence on 17th June, 2010. 7. The grievance of the Respondent No.2 and cause for concern is it is alleged that the Police Officers were acting in a malafide manner as Respondent No.2 refused to settle for the amount asked. 7. The grievance of the Respondent No.2 and cause for concern is it is alleged that the Police Officers were acting in a malafide manner as Respondent No.2 refused to settle for the amount asked. The visit at the residence of Respondent No.2 at 9.00 P.M. was in gross violation of provisions of Cr. P.C., 1973. Despite protest by put by brother of Respondent No.2 Shri Kapil, the Investigating Officers ASI Smt. Krishna and S.I. Prempal (Petitioner in 1204 of 2011) insisted for searching the house, without any search warrant. The said Officers were arrogant, brash and conveyed in satirical manner that they did not need any search warrant. Some neighbours had gathered due to commotion. Due to protest, the search was postponed to the next day. On 18th June, 2010, father of Respondent No.2 Pradeep Kumar Bhandari reached at Pune. On that day, Mrs. Deeksha Bhandari who was permitted by the Police to search the house which she carried without any authority. The Police has allegedly threatened Respondent No.2 and his father repeatedly about dire consequences and arrest, if they did not enter into a lumpsum monetary settlement with Smt. Deeksha. 8. The grievance of the Respondent No.2 in the complaint was that since the Accused (Petitioner) rediculed the Respondent No.2 before the neighbours and were unlawfully harassing father of Respondent No.2, his father suffered a cardiogenic shock which eventually lead to a massive heart attack. He was required to be taken to hospital and ultimately, Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari expired on 1st July, 2010. Hence, complaint. 9. The point before this Court is, whether primary evidence adduced by Respondent No.2 for process for offence under Sections 302 or 304 and 120(b) or 166 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code would have been initiated. Evidence of Smt. Sujata K. Chandwani, Shri Sham Naikram Goklani was led before the learned Judge. It is on record that death of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari on 1st July, 2010 was due to suffering from heart stroke and it was a natural death, there was angioplasty before his death as established by Dr. Jagdish Hiramal, examined by Respondent No.2. 10. The bone of accusations against the Petitioners now needs to be tested in between 17th June, 2010 or 18th June, 2010 and filing of complaint in October, 2011, (Process issued on 9/9/2011). Jagdish Hiramal, examined by Respondent No.2. 10. The bone of accusations against the Petitioners now needs to be tested in between 17th June, 2010 or 18th June, 2010 and filing of complaint in October, 2011, (Process issued on 9/9/2011). Several events have taken place in between the couple, facing prosecution and different proceedings. Writ Petition No.1085 of 2010 was filed by Respondent No.2 before Delhi High Court challenging FIR No.90 of 2010 for offence under Sections 406 and 498–A. He desired transfer of investigation. On 9th March, 2011, Writ Petition was dismissed. The Respondent No.2 did not press allegation of demand of bribe nor it was primarily proved before Delhi High Court. The Respondent No.2 did not inform learned JMFC of orders dated 3rd March, 2011 and 9th March, 2011 of Delhi High Court. It is thus, events of death of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari due to causing minor injury or physical abuses, has not surfaced anywhere. 11. Even if the search carried at the residence on 17th October, 2010 was illegal, however, that will not invite the prosecution. There is nothing to suggest that any act of Petitioner was irregular, dangerous in its nature, inviting the culpable homicide not amounting murder, injury either mental or physical to the deceased. The Police Officers were acting in consonance and discharge of their duty under a valid permission from the concerned Senior Police Officer of the Delhi. Local Police were informed on 17th June, 2010. They were present at the residence during search. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari was not invited on 18th June, 2010. He of his own came to Pune. He had in fact, suffered from hyper tension and was hyper sensitive. He had argued with the Police authority. The learned Judge should have enquired with Pune police about the events or could have enquired of search warrant. The police attached to Wanawadi Police after conducting inquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P.C. had given negative report. There is no element of mental torture suffered by father of Respondent No.2, as he could not be subject of verbal attack or abuses. Again, considering the passage of time spent in between from 18th June, 2010 till 1st July, 2010, it ultimately fits in the situation to infer that the death of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari was a natural death, can not be the result of so called illegality committed by the Petitioners. Again, considering the passage of time spent in between from 18th June, 2010 till 1st July, 2010, it ultimately fits in the situation to infer that the death of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhandari was a natural death, can not be the result of so called illegality committed by the Petitioners. Issuance of process by the learned J.M.F.C. referred above, cause for interference. It is accordingly, quashed and Applications are allowed. Applications allowed.