Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1060 (BOM)

Anusaya Wasudeo Mate v. State of Maharashtra

2018-04-16

M.G.GIRATKAR, R.K.DESHPANDE

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. v. 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. 4. Heard Ms. Jaipurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1. She has supported the action of the respondent No. 1. 5. 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. 4. Heard Ms. Jaipurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1. She has supported the action of the respondent No. 1. 5. None appears for the respondent No. 2. 6. 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. 7. 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. v. 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." 8. The applicants were residing at their respective villages and not in the village of deceased. 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." 8. 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 be nothing but abuse of process of Court. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1], 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.