AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 M.G.Giratkar, J
Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
The petitioner has challenged registration of First Information Report. Dt.2.4.2011 vide Crime No.11 of 2011 on the report of respondent no.2 in
Police Station, Kholapur. It is submitted that the petitioner is working on the rank of Recruiter in O.C. HILLI COY in the Maratha L.I.R.C. at
Belgaun. The applicant was on leave from 16.8.2011 to 12.9.2011. It is alleged in the report by nonapplicant that daughter of
complainant/respondent no.2 was learning in 8th Std. His neighbour/petitioner gave missed call on 18.2.2011 on his mobile. He quarrelled with him. On
25.2.2011, wife of respondent no.2 namely Manisha had gone to village Jawara. He along with his son Satish went to Weekly Market for the purpose
of his business. His daughter Manisha was alone in the house. At about 5.00 p.m., Ramdas Mahulkar informed him that his daughter was burnt. He
immediately came to Amravati. She was admitted in the hospital. On 25.2.2011 in the night Manisha died. The petitioner gave missed call on mobile
and therefore, his daughter committed suicide. On the report of respondent no.2, offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code came
to be registered. It is submitted that the allegations in the report if taken into consideration, then the offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the F.I.R./Criminal proceedings.
Heard Mr.A.S.Ambatkar, learned Counsel holding for Mr.Pravin Agrawal, and learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has pointed out decision of
this Court in the case of Binod s/o. Ratan Sarkar and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1216 and the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar .vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371. Learned Counsel has
submitted that there was no act direct or indirect of any incitement by the petitioner to the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, in view of cited
Judgments, the F.I.R. needs to be quashed and set aside.
Heard Ms T.H.Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. None appears for the respondent no.2.
From the reading of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2, it appears that, on 18.2.2011, there was one missed call on mobile from the mobile of
petitioner. He gave understanding to the petitioner. There was quarrel between them. On 25.2.2011, daughter namely Manisha of
complainant/respondent no.2 committed suicide by burning herself. He has stated in the F.I.R. That, because of the missed call given by the
petitioner on the mobile, Manisha has committed suicide. It is pertinent to note that missed call was given by the petitioner on 18.2.2011 and the
deceased committed suicide on 25.2.2011. In between these seven days, there was no incitement directly or indirectly by the petitioner to the
deceased. On the day of incident, deceased was alone in the house. Respondent no.2 along with his son had been to weekly market. His wife
had gone to village Jawara. It appears from the contents of report that it was lodged only to harass the petitioner. All the contents of the report if
taken into consideration then the offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (cited supra) has observed as under:
“ A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that
the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife. He was a
frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note suggests that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. The wife had
stated that on 26.7.1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution
story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25.7.1998 and if the deceased came back to the
house again on 26.7.1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998.
Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, the ingredients of “abetment†are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under
Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive
drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that
had ensued on 25.7.1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and
circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, who was
responsible for his death. â€
In the case of Binod s/o. Ratan Sarkar and Others (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:
“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 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 anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as
provided in the three clauses of Section 107. As such, in case of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. â€
Nothing is stated in the report by respondent no.2 regarding any direct or indirect act of incitement to the deceased to commit suicide. The incident
stated in the report is dt.18.2.2011. It is alleged in the report that, on 18.2.2011 the petitioner gave missed call on their mobile phone. Thereafter, on
25.2.2011, the deceased committed suicide. Nothing is stated in the report about the period from 18.2.2011 to 25.2.2011. In the report, it is only
stated by the complainant/respondent no.2 that his daughter Manisha committed suicide because the petitioner gave missed call on their mobile
phone. Except this allegation, there is no other allegation to show that the petitioner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the First
Information Report dt.2.4.2011 vide Crime No.11/2011 registered by respondent no.1 on the report of respondent no.2 is liable to be quashed and set
aside. Hence, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (i) of present Criminal Writ Petition and quash and set aside F.I.R. dt.2.4.2011 vide
crime no.11/2011 registered by respondent no.1 on the report of respondent no.2. No order as to costs.  Â