Bombay High Court: The present application was filed by applicant-accused, seeking quashing and setting aside of a case, registered with the Mahatma Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Miraj on 24-06-2016 against him, invoking Sections and of the (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., opined that the material in the charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the accused in the property dispute between his brother and the complainant’s father-the deceased, were too far-fetched and fell short of any instigation/incitement and further, a bare reference to his presence in Miraj in the month of May, where he was alleged to have threatened the deceased and asked him to vacate the property was not sufficient to attract instigation/incitement, as the offence was registered on 24-06-2016.
The Court opined that if the power under Section of the (‘CrPC’) was not exercised, then the accused would have to unnecessarily face the rigmarole of trial, which ultimately would result in his acquittal, as no material in the charge-sheet attracted the ingredients of Section of . The Court thus quashed and set aside the case registered against the accused.
Background
In the present case, FIR was registered on the complaint filed by Respondent 2, son of the deceased, who did not return home and thus, a missing complaint was filed on 21-06-2016. On 22-06-2016, the deceased’s body was found on the boundary of an agricultural land and on search at his residence, a note and three written chits were seized, which alleged to be suicide notes and referred to the accused and his brother Jakirhusain. The note/chit was related to a case filed between the members of Hirgude family at Miraj, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 01-10-1992 and the decree for partition and separate possession was passed.
The accused’s brother purchased the undivided share allotted to some of the parties to the decree, with the consent of the co-sharers vide registered Sale Deed dated 07-12-2010. The Sale Deed was in the name of the accused’s brother, as the purchaser and member of Hirgude family as the vendors. On 26-04-2016, the accused’s brother was handed over the actual/physical possession of the property purchased by him under the registered Sale Deed and allotted to the share of his vendors, in terms of the execution of partition decree.
When the accused’s brother was handed over the possession of the property, the complainant’s father was harassing the accused and his brother, as he had staked his claim in the portion of the property, which was purchased by the accused’s brother, with which he had no concern and the entitlement of the accused’s brother was established through the series of orders passed by the competent court, pursuant to which, he came in possession of the said property.
The accused, being a law graduate, was engaged in private practice and had performed inter-religion marriage against the wishes of his family members and the relationship with his family members along with his brother was severed to such an extent that they were not even on talking terms. In 2004, the accused got selected in the judicial service and when the present case was registered, he was serving as the Judge, Small Causes Court at Nagpur.
It was submitted that the accused had no concern with the deceased or the Complainant, and he was implicated with malafide intention and ulterior motive, even though he had no connection with the property that was the subject matter of the case. The suicide note only referred to the accused’s brother, that he was responsible for finishing the complainant’s father and his sacrifice would not go to waste and even he would finish him. The complainant, therefore, alleged that the accused and his brother were responsible for his father’s death as being fed up with the harassment caused to his father, he committed suicide.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused and that too proximate to the time of occurrence must be necessarily established. Further, the cardinal principle was that mens rea was required to abet the suicide and despite a suicide note, prima facie, revealing harassment, unless a proof of instigation to commit suicide was offered, it was held that a person could not be held guilty of having abated suicide within the meaning of Section of .
The Court also opined that the charge under Section of was not sustainable on the allegation of harassment, without there being any positive act, proximate to the time of occurrence of the incident on part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. Further, abetment involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
The Court stated that in Section of , the term ‘instigation’ means goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act and if a person who had committed suicide was hypersensitive and the action of accused was otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it was not safe to hold him guilty of abetment of suicide.
The Court opined that only when an accused played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually drew him to commit suicide, he might be guilty of abetment of suicide because of presence of instigation and mens rea. Since two people might possess different mental capacities to deal with a situation, the yardstick to be applied should vary, as human behaviour was a complex phenomenon and what might apply to one might not apply to the other.
The Court stated that in the present case, the accused, a Judicial Officer, was never involved in the pending suit, as the property was purchased by his brother exclusively and only his brother was a party to the litigation. The Court stated that there was no reason for the deceased to implicate the accused, as he was not connected with the dispute at all. The Court opined that the material in the charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the accused, were too far-fetched and fall short of any instigation/incitement and a bare reference to his presence in Miraj in the month of May, where he was alleged to have threatened the deceased and asked him to vacate the subject property was not sufficient to attract instigation/incitement, as the offence was registered on 24-06-2016.
The Court stated that it was not alleged that the accused abetted the suicide by instigating or inciting the deceased in any manner, as abetment involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the accused’s part to instigate or aid in commission of suicide by the deceased, therefore, he could not be convicted or an offence punishable under Section of .
The Court opined that if the power under Section of was not exercised, whose purpose was to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, then the accused would have to unnecessarily face the rigmarole of trial, which ultimately would result in his acquittal, as no material in the charge-sheet collected by the prosecution attracted the ingredients of Section of .
The Court thus quashed and set aside the FIR dated 24-06-2016 registered against the accused with Mahatma Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Miraj for the offences punishable under Sections and of .
[Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 959 of 2016, decided on 18-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate i/b A.M. Kulkarni and Manoj Badgujar for the Applicant.
For the Respondents: J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State/Respondent.
Corresponding Section of the (‘BNS, 2023’)
Section of
Corresponding Section of the
Section of
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .