Criminal Application [APL] No.391 of 2018

29th March, 2019.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. AAKASH A. GUPTA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. M.J. KHAN, Mr. R.B. UPADHYAY

Cases Cited:
Suhas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1684=2017 SCC OnLine Bom 304 [Para 3]
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 [Para 3]
Ravindra s/o. Bhimrao Khillare & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2966 [Para 3]
M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1659 (S.C.)=(2011) 3 SCC 626 [Para 3]
S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.)=(2010) 12 SCC 190 [Para 3]
Satish Narayan Ate Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996(4) ALL MR 92=1997 Cri. L.J. 935 [Para 3]
Girish Sanjay Bole Vs. State of Mah., 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3863 [Para 3]
Digambar Bhujang Kamble Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2536 [Para 3]
Dilip Ramrao Shirasao & others Vs. State of Mah. & another, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328 [Para 3]
Vijay Vs. State of Mah., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1012 [Para 3]
Didigam Bikshapathi & another Vs. State of A.P., 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 870 (S.C.)=2008 Cri. L. J. 724 [Para 3,6]
Baban Shripati Gaikwad & others Vs. The State of Mah. & another, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3960 [Para 3]
Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2966 [Para 3]
R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, 1960 ALLMR ONLINE 112 (S.C.) : AIR 1960 SC 866 [Para 5]
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1=AIR 1992 SC 604 [Para 5]

JUDGMENT

S. M. Modak, J. :- The Applicants being the lenders of a loan transaction have approached this Court for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against them by Hudkeshwar Police Station, Nagpur. The criminal law was set in motion when Jugram Lanjewar committed suicide by hanging on 29th January, 2018 and when his wife Sunita Lanjewar decided to approach the police. Police got registered the offence under Section 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against these applicants on 7th February, 2018.

2. Applicants claim that deceased was heavily indebted and he committed suicide for his own wrongdoings and the criminal prosecution is the finest example of abuse of process of Court and they are asking for quashing of the proceedings. During investigation, the suicide note was sent to Handwriting Expert for comparison. Direction was given to produce the opinion. It was also produced. It suggests that the questioned handwriting was written by the person who wrote the specimen handwriting. On this background, we have heard learned Adv. Shri Akash Gupta at great length and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Shri Khan. Also heard Shri R. B. Upadhye for respondent no.2.

3. It is but natural for every litigant to expect a favourable verdict from the Court. In that zeal, there is a tendency to file plethora of judgments. In fact, the purpose can be achieved even by filing the judgments in which law has been interpreted for the first time. One can understand few more judgments are filed just to apprise the Court about the background in which criminal prosecutions for abetement of suicides are being initiated and quashed. But in this case, the applicants have filed in as many as ten judgments. It is but natural for the prosecution and the original first informant to file few judgments. They are as follows :-

Judgments filed by the Applicants :

[a] Suhas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 304 : [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1684],

[b] Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371,

[c] Ravindra s/o. Bhimrao Khillare & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2966,

[d] M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1659 (S.C.)],

[e] S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.) : (2010) 12 SCC 190],

[f] Satish Narayan Ate Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cri. L.J. 935 : [1996(4) ALL MR 92],

[g] Girish Sanjay Bole Vs. State of Mah., 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3863,

[h] Digambar Bhujang Kamble Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2526]

[i] Dilip Ramrao Shirasao & others Vs. State of Mah. & another [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328],

[j] Vijay Vs. State of Mah. [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1012],

Judgment filed by the prosecution :

Didigam Bikshapathi & another Vs. State of A.P. [2008 Cri. L. J. 724] : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 870 (S.C.)].

Judgments cited by respondent no.2 :

[a] Baban Shripati Gaikwad & others Vs. The State of Mah. & another [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3960], and

[b] Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2966].

4. We do not want to leave open the grievance that the Court has not read those judgments, we have undertaken that exercise of reading all the judgments. We have bifurcated those judgments into two categories. One category is set of judgments in which the law has been interpreted and second category is those judgments in which law already interpreted is reiterated.

SCOPE OF POWER

5. Basically, we have to deal with two issues. One is the scope of power of quashing and second is whether it can be exercised in the present set of facts. One need not dwell upon the issue of power of the High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject is well settled. As back as in the year 1960, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] : [1960 ALLMR ONLINE 112 (S.C.)] had occasion to deal with this issue. Three parameters were laid down. Similarly, in the year 1992 while dealing with a person involving a political personality, Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealt with the similar issue. Seven parameters were laid down. It is in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1].

6. We think that still the law interpreted in above two judgments holds good. Apart from this, Hon'ble Supreme Court in few of above cited judgments elaborated the law on the point of scope of a power. While rejecting the quashing petition, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Didigam [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 870 (S.C.)] [supra] expressed limitations before exercising such power. There is no scope for appreciation of evidence. Now, we will deal with the judgments dealing with the law on the point of abetement of suicide.

ABETEMENT OF SUICIDE

7. When we have perused all these judgments, we find that they were delivered on the background of different set of facts. In some of them, there was matrimonial relationships. In some of them, relationship had arisen out of financial transaction. In some of them, it was out of student-management relationship. The facts in case of Suhas Kakde referred above are more or less similar to the facts before us. There was a money lending transaction and there was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the deceased. He committed suicide leaving a suicide note. High Court has quashed the proceedings for absence of satisfying the requirements of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. In fact, it was not necessary for the applicants to file bulk of judgments involving a different set of relations in between the deceased and the accused. But, as said above, there is a tendency to file plenty of judgments. We will deal with them in nutshell.

8. When there were sufficient averments in the suicidal note supported by statements of witnesses, Hon'ble High Court refused to quash proceeding in case of Baban Gaikwad as referred above. Similarly, when deceased committed suicide due to persuasion of prospective purchasers to execute sale-deed and the accused eloped with the money, Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to quash the proceedings. It is in case of Didigam Bikshapathi .

9. There are three judgments filed by applicants which were delivered on the background of commission of suicide due to financial transaction. The allegations were falling short to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution was quashed when a police constable committed suicide and attributed the harassment towards one of the lenders. The deceased was suspended and he borrowed money from several persons. It is in case of Asha Wadmare. More or less, similar were the facts in case of Amit Naharkar. One rickshaw driver / deceased blamed another rickshaw driver for harassment caused in recovering loan amount. The borrower rickshaw driver committed suicide. After investigation it was disclosed that there was absence of material showing loan transaction. Prosecution was quashed. It is in the case of Vijay Ghurkude as referred above.

10. The applicants have not left any option but to file judgments having background of matrimonial relationship too. When the husband committed suicide due to the threat given by brother of the wife, brother-in-law was prosecuted. It was in case of Sanju Sengar as referred above. There was a time gap of two days in between the incident of quarrel and the date of suicide. The accused in a heat of anger told his brother-in-law/deceased to go and die. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various factors including the drinking habit of the deceased and his uncontrolled behaviour, one day earlier to the incident. The background for uttering the words "go and die" needs to be considered and they were uttered in a moment of anger and there was no mens rea.

11. In a next case, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash the proceedings against brother-in-law and mother-in-law when daughter-in-law committed suicide. The prosecution continued against the husband and sister-in-law of the deceased. Mens rea was absent and the daughter-in-law committed suicide as she was refused permission to travel from a family car by her sister-in-law. Mens rea was held absent against the appellants. It was in case of M. Mohan referred above.

12. In S. S. Chheema, one student committed suicide when there was an allegation of theft of mobile handset and security officer conducted enquiry. The fellow student was charge-sheeted and this security officer was impleaded lateron. Proceedings were quashed. The human behaviour, temperament, sensitivity are the factors to be relevant. In a next case, even a lady having two paramours and one of the paramour committing suicide wherein another paramour was prosecuted. There were also utterances as "go and die." Prosecution was quashed. It is in case of Swamy Pralhhaddas as referred above. Even the love relationship is not free from the menace created by a wrong prosecution of suicide cases. The girl put an end to her life by setting her on fire and blamed the boy. There was a one-sided love by that boy and girl was harassed. The material was held insufficient. It is in case of Girish Bole.

13. Even the applicants went on to file the judgments delivered after the trial Court delivered judgment. The applicants should have put restraint at least in not filing such judgments. Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction of a boy whose marriage with the deceased was cancelled. The girl committed suicide and blamed boy . It is in case of Satish Aate. The acquittal for want of evidence was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court. It is in case of Digambar Kamble. Deceased consumed poison and blamed the accused for the torture given to him earlier to the incident. It was held insufficient.

14. The suicide prosecution had even touched the relationship between superior and his subordinate. It has touched the Police Department. Even it has touched the Judiciary. When a fellow judge committed suicide and he blamed his superiors, police on the basis of suicide note were left with no alternative, but to prosecute the senior judges of the district. As the facts do not constitute an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, Hon'ble High Court was required to intervene and quashed the proceedings. It is in case of Dilip Shirasao.

FACTS OF THE CASE

15. On the background of above discussion, we have perused the documents made available and the replies. It is a matter of record that deceased Jugaram has taken a hand loan of 40,000/- for him and Rs. 40,000/- for his friend Shri Vairagade from applicants. The deceased has refunded Rs.25,000/- and the applicant Imran and his wife Gulnaza used to harass the deceased by all the modes. That is to say by visiting the place of work of the deceased and even on mobile. Deceased was given an ultimatum to repay Rs.30,000/- till 29th January, 2018 and otherwise he was threatened to meet the dire consequences. Due to the pressure, he committed suicide by hanging in his own house on 29th January, 2018. He left a suicide note blaming the applicants. Initially, accidental report was registered and lateron it was converted into an offence under Section 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on 7th February, 2018.

16. It has got a background. There was a non-cognizable offence under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code registered at the instance of deceased on 27th December, 2017 at Hudkeshwar police station. It was registered against a person by name "Khan" and the wife and daughter of the deceased were abused on account of interest on loan amount.

17. We have drawn certain inferences on reading those judgments. They are as follows :-

[1] The acts complained against the accused.

[2] The background of relationship in between the deceased and the accused.

[3] Whether the accused was justified in doing/exercising the acts complained.

These parameters will help every Court dealing with the issue of quashing. We have perused the material by applying above three parameters. When we perused the material, we find that the act complained against both the accused is persistent demand of money and giving of threats of consequences if the demand is not fulfilled upto 29th January, 2018. The relationship between the applicants and the deceased is that of lender and borrower. If a lender will ask for repayment, it is his legal right to demand the money back. No law can blame the lender if he will exercise his right of refund. The issue is whether the lender has exercised his right in a legitimate way or by exceeding the limits. There are two aspects. One is the threat given to face the consequences and second is previous threat given and converted into non-cognizable offence dated 27th December, 2017. This incident was of one month earlier to the suicide incident. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased has taken any action to protest the behaviour of the applicants except filing non-cognizable report.

18. We feel that even the alleged threat to meet the consequences falls short to fulfill the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. Even if we will believe that really applicants threatened the deceased to meet the consequences, the deceased was having an option to set the criminal law into motion in the manner he did on 27th December, 2017. He did not do that. Rather, he decided to run away from the life and put an end to his life. We feel that there was an alternative available to the deceased rather than to commit suicide. We feel that the allegations in the FIR and in the suicide note even if presumed to be correct are not sufficient enough to force the deceased to take the path of unnatural death. We find that the mens rea on the part of applicants is absent.

19. We feel that the case is covered as per contingency no.2 discussed in case of R. P. Kapoor and contingency no.1 laid down in case of Bhajanlal. We are cautious of the restraint on power of appreciating the material. There is other side of the story.

20. The applicants have filed plenty of documents suggesting that deceased was indebted to various persons and there are number of prosecutions initiated against the deceased under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It shows that apart from the applicants the deceased was having financial transactions with so many persons. The documents filed by the applicants are the certified copies of court record and it can be considered at interim stage. There is a reason to believe that deceased was in disturbed state of mind.

21. On the set of these facts, this Court cannot allow the prosecution to be continued. One can understand the sentiments of the relatives of the deceased for unnatural death. If they have to blame a third person other than the deceased, their allegation must fulfill the ingredients of the relevant Section of law. If they fall short, it is the appropriate time for the Court to intervene. As observed in case of Didigam, the judicial process should not be an instrument of operation or needless harassment. We feel that even if the applicants will face trial, the materials will not be sufficient to prove the charge under Section 306 of IPC. We feel that at the time of trial, the prosecution would not be able to convert these materials into a legal evidence and to secure conviction. The applicants have made out a case for quashing and we intend the allow the petition. Hence, the petition is allowed. The First Information Report bearing No. 102/2018 registered under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at Hudkeshwar Police Station, Nagpur, and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. The Court seized of the matter to take a note of this fact and to pass consequential orders.

Petition allowed.