Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1060 (GUJ)

Sunil Gulab Panpatil v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-30

ILESH J.VORA

body2024
ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicant-original accused Mr. Sunil Gulab Panpatil has preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11210048220760 of 2022 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. This Court has heard learned Counsel Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, appearing for the applicant Ms. C.M. Shah, learned State Prosecutor. 3. Despite of service of notice upon the second respondent, who lodged the FIR, has chosen not to appear and throughout the proceedings he remained absent. 4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present application are that, deceased Bharti Sachin, ended her life by committing suicide on 28.9.2022, hanging herself at her matrimonial home Surat. The father of the deceased Bastimal Atmaram has lodged the aforesaid FIR against the applicant and the husband Sachin, inter alia, alleging that during the marriage span of her daughter, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused as they were demanding Rs. 12 lakhs from her to purchase a house at Surat. So far as husband is concerned, it is alleged that, he was in habit of consuming liquor and always doubted on the character of the deceased and she was wrongfully confined in the house. It is further alleged that, the deceased committed suicide due to continuous harassment meted out against her by the accused and they have abetted in committing the suicide. 5. The applicant is the uncle of the husband and is resident of Nandurbar, Maharashtra where he is serving as a Professor in the reputed College. In such circumstances, he has preferred this quashing petition, inter alia, alleging that, the impleadment as accused is nothing but an abuse of due process of law as at no point of time, he stayed with the deceased either at the village at Maharashtra or in Surat and considering the allegations, prima-facie no offence qua him is made out. 6. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for and on behalf of the applicant has submitted that, the applicant is the uncle of the principal accused Sunil and he is living separately at Nandurbar, serving as an Assistant Professor with Arts and Commerce College. 6. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for and on behalf of the applicant has submitted that, the applicant is the uncle of the principal accused Sunil and he is living separately at Nandurbar, serving as an Assistant Professor with Arts and Commerce College. The applicant being a Uncle, had extended financial help to his nephew because his financial condition is not so much sound. To substantiate this contention, he drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the Bank-statement. In this background facts, it is submitted that the allegation demanding Rs.10 Lakhs by the applicant is inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceedings against the applicant-accused. That, in the entire FIR, except a bald allegation of demanding Rs.10 Lakh, nothing being alleged that the applicant was harassing the deceased with an intention that she should commit suicide. That, the registration of the FIR, by the father of the deceased is filed with malafide intention and only with a view to harass the applicant, he has been impleaded as accused without any active role on his part. 7. In view of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel would submit that the FIR lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged; that the facts and circumstance of the case do not, in any way, indicate that the alleged act of demanding cash amount, would constitute abetment to commit suicide; that there is complete absence of any sort of instigation or any positive act on the part of the applicant, causing the deceased to commit a suicide; that the necessary ingredients of the abetment, as laid down in Section 107, is completely absent in this case and, therefore, the allegations accepted on its face value, do not establish or suggest that there was intention on the part of the accused to encourage the deceased in committing suicide. 8. Lastly, it is submitted that where prima-facie no case is made out against the applicant, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to sheer harassment and abuse of process of law and Court. 9. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the application, has contended that, there is sufficient material for the commission of alleged offence and, therefore, at this stage, the disputed question of facts, cannot be examined by this Court. 9. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the application, has contended that, there is sufficient material for the commission of alleged offence and, therefore, at this stage, the disputed question of facts, cannot be examined by this Court. Thus, therefore, where there is a prima- facie case made out for the commission of the offence, the Court may not exercise its inherent powers. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of Court’s power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The inherent powers of the High Court has been conferred with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In any case, solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit the prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335. The para-102 of the judgment reads thus: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. In the present case, the applicant has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. To bring home the accused for the charge under Section 306, the prosecution has to prove (i) the deceased committed suicide (ii) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide and (iii) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment as comprising (a) instigation to commit the offence (b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and (c) aiding the commission of offence. The scope and ambit of Section 107 and its corelation with Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment as comprising (a) instigation to commit the offence (b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and (c) aiding the commission of offence. The scope and ambit of Section 107 and its corelation with Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (10) SCC 797 , the two judge Bench of the Apex Court in para 6, while defining the abetment of things held as under:- “Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.” 12. In light of the settled proposition of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case, it reveals that the marriage of the deceased with the principal accused took place on 26.5.2022. The parties are belong to State of Maharashtra. The husband, though having his native at Maharashtra, he had chosen to do labour work at Surat. On plain reading of the FIR, it appears that, in the month of September, 2022, the deceased along with her husband-principal accused, came at Surat where they lived in a rented house. The parties are belong to State of Maharashtra. The husband, though having his native at Maharashtra, he had chosen to do labour work at Surat. On plain reading of the FIR, it appears that, in the month of September, 2022, the deceased along with her husband-principal accused, came at Surat where they lived in a rented house. The applicant being the Uncle of the principal accused, how and under what circumstances, had demanded Rs.10 Lakhs from the wife, has not been clarified by the complainant. The bald allegation without there being any reference to the date and time qua the applicant, seems to be improbable and prudently it cannot be accepted, more particularly, when the applicant, extended financial help to the principal accused. In the entire FIR, except the bald allegations of demanding amount, nothing being alleged that the deceased was harassed mentally and physically by the applicant. In such set of circumstances, the allegations of demanding amount by the applicant, do not attract the ingredients of abetment, as laid down under Section 107 of the IPC. The allegations, as made against the applicant, are vague and general and, therefore, same is not fall under the definition of ‘Cruelty’. 13. For the reasons recorded, considering the allegations made against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima-facie if it is accepted to be true, do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicant. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the application is allowed. The FIR being C.R. No. 11210048220760 of 2022 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the consequential proceedings thereto against the present applicant are quashed and set-aside. 15. The observations made herein is confined to the adjudication of the present application. The trial Court shall not get influence by the said observations during the trial proceedings of the principal accused. Direct service permitted.