Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 725 (BOM)

Sakshi Satish Bajoriya v. State of Maharashtra

2018-03-13

B.R.GAVAI, M.G.GIRATKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By way of instant application, the applicant challenges the registration of FIR by non-applicant No.1-Police Station, Pandharkawada on the report of non-applicant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that a false report is lodged by non-applicant No.2 alleging that due to chatting/talking by the applicant on Face-book with her son Vedant, he committed suicide. It is alleged in the report that deceased Vedant was always talking with the applicant. It is submitted that from the face value of the report itself, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. Hence, prayed to quash and set aside FIR registered by non-applicant No.1. 4. Heard Shri Anup Dhore, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He has pointed out the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 against the applicant. Learned Counsel submitted that even the face value of the report is taken as it is, then offence punishable under Section 306 is not made out. Therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the FIR. 5. Heard Shri M.K. Pathan, learned APP appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.1/State and Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.2. Learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 has supported the action of non-applicant No.1. 6. From reading of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2, it is clear that her son Vedant was in love with the applicant. She has stated in the report dated 09.08.2017 that her son Vedant was learning in BDP College, Pandharkawada and he was a student of B.Com. final year. He was preparing for CA and MBA and was residing at Nagpur. Since last one and half years, her son Vedant was chatting on WhatsApp with one girl. On 23.03.2017, Vedant consumed some poisonous substance. The complainant/non-applicant No.2 called her husband. She admitted her son in the government hospital. Medical Officer examined him and declared him dead. After the death, she enquired from her younger son. He checked the mobile of deceased. Number of one girl was found in the mobile. Her husband talked with that girl on phone. That girl told her name as Sonu Singh. After four months, her husband again talked with that girl and called her. After the death, she enquired from her younger son. He checked the mobile of deceased. Number of one girl was found in the mobile. Her husband talked with that girl on phone. That girl told her name as Sonu Singh. After four months, her husband again talked with that girl and called her. She told her name as Priya Chamedia (applicant). She has alleged in the report that Priya Chamedia and Sonu Singh is one and the same girl. She was talking on WhatsApp and Face-book with her deceased son. Her deceased son Vedant had love with that girl and, therefore, her son committed suicide. 7. From the perusal of the report, it does not disclose any instigation or any instance which drove the deceased Vedant to commit suicide. Even assuming that deceased had love affairs with the applicant that itself not sufficient to commit suicide. The report does not disclose that applicant threatened or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others .v. State of Maharashtra and another (reported in 2016(5) Mh.L.J.(Cri) 323, to one of us (B.R. Gavai, J) was a party, has observed that there should be some instigation or provocation to commit suicide. Merely, writing some chit and naming some person is responsible, is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is observed in para 16(12) of the said judgment, as under: “12. In order to bring out an offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code specific abetment as contemplated by section 107, Indian Penal Code 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 his particular offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code.” 9. In the case of Ms. Lovina Pankaj Bhatia v. Central Bureau of Investigation (in Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 2011, decided on 12th August, 2011), B.R. Gavai, J, has observed as under: “21. Assuming that there could have been some altercation or fight between the deceased and the applicant, but this would be a routine aspect in sort of such relationship. Lovina Pankaj Bhatia v. Central Bureau of Investigation (in Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 2011, decided on 12th August, 2011), B.R. Gavai, J, has observed as under: “21. Assuming that there could have been some altercation or fight between the deceased and the applicant, but this would be a routine aspect in sort of such relationship. Can it be said to be a positive act on the part of the present applicant to have intention that the deceased should commit suicide. From the statement of Aishwarya it would be clear that when they arrived at scene, the applicant was in inconsolable position. She was shouting, screaming. The conduct of the person intending that the deceased should have committed suicide would be otherwise than what was the conduct of the applicant. It appears that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference which happen in our day-today life. He appears to be frustrated because of his failure in the professional life. He might have been disturbed due to his extra marital relationship with the applicant and the resultant discord with his wife on account of this relationship with the applicant. It appears that the deceased being hypersensitive was unable to face the ground realities and has committed unfortunate act of ending his life. However, I find that there is no material which would show that the applicant has abetted the said act by the deceased.” 10. The report lodged by non-applicant No.2 does not constitute any offence against the applicant. Even the contents of report are taken as true, then also it makes clear that her deceased son had love affairs with the applicant. He was talking with the applicant on Face-book and WhatsApp. Except this contention, there is nothing in the report to show that the applicant instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. From the face value of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.), 426), the FIR registered by non-applicant No.1 on the report of non-applicant No.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order. The application is allowed. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.), 426), the FIR registered by non-applicant No.1 on the report of non-applicant No.2 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of Criminal Application (APL) No. 625 of 2017. No order as to costs.