Criminal Application (APL) No.599 of 2013

4th April, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Shri V.B. GAWALI
Respondent Counsel: Shri V.A. THAKARE, Shri R.J. SHINDE

Cases Cited:
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 ALL SCR 775=2008 (4) SCC 582 [Para 5]
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 [Para 7]

JUDGMENT

B. R. GAVAI, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties

2. The applicants have approached this Court praying for quashing the First Information Report No. 167 of 2013 registered at the instance of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The daughter of respondent No.2 namely Manisha was married to one Ram Kale, son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of applicant No.3. The said Manisha committed suicide on 19/7/2013 by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself on fire. Accordingly, the first information report came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging therein that the applicants were ill-treating the deceased on the ground of non payment of dowry.

4. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties and an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 stating therein that the first information report was lodged by him on getting annoyed due to the accidental death of his daughter.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported at 2008 (4) SCC 582 : [2008 ALL SCR 775] has held that when the dispute is purely private in nature and involves no element of public law, this Court should invoke jurisdiction and exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings.

6. No doubt, the offence registered against the applicants under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code is pertaining to a private dispute and it cannot be said to be a dispute between the parties involving element of public law. In that view of the matter, though the parties have themselves settled the matter, we have gone through the entire charge-sheet, which reveals that there are general allegations of ill-treatment attributed to the present applicants. There is no specific instance stated by any of the witnesses regarding ill-treatment.

7. The legal position for convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is well settled. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. Reported at 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 that for proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, there has to be some immediate or proximate act on behalf of the accused, which is of such a drastic nature that gives no option to the deceased other than to commit suicide. In the present case, perusal of the statements of the witnesses would reveal no such act is attributed to any of the accused.

8. In that view of the matter, if the trial is permitted to be continued, such exercise will become futile. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case wherein the proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside.

9. In the result, the application is allowed. First Information Report No. 167 of 2013 so also the consequent charge-sheet are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Application allowed.