Sneha Madhukar Ambekar v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3775 OF 2015 Ms.Sneha Madhukar Ambekar .... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents .......

• Mr.Vikram Chavan a/w Amod Eklaspur, Advocate for the Petitioner.

• Mr.Rajan Salvi, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 13th APRIL, 2018.

P.C. :

1.

The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-348/15 which has been registered for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

We are informed that the fact situation has undergone a change inasmuch as the charge-sheet has now been filed in the concerned Court. The gravamen of the allegation against the Petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, is that she has abetted the deceased in committing suicide. Facts which have Nesarikar

2 / 3 lead to the suicide, have been succinctly mentioned in the FIR. It seems that there was a mental discord between the Petitioner and her husband which resulted in the Petitioner leaving the matrimonial house. The discord ostensibly was on the ground that the Petitioner was desirous of living separately from her inlaws. It seems that the husband i.e. the deceased had made some arrangements for the Petitioner and him living separately, but the said arrangement did not meet the satisfaction of the Petitioner, upon which the husband, it seems, requested the Petitioner to once again reside with his parents till alternative arrangement were made, which was not acceptable to the Petitioner, which resulted in Petitioner leaving the matrimonial house.

3.

It is alleged that the matter was precipitated on account of the fact that the Petitioner made a grievance to Mahila Takrar Nivaran Kaksha, Badlapur, as a result of which the parents of the deceased and the deceased were summoned before the said Takrar Samiti. It is further alleged by the first informant that the deceased was also threatened that the

3 / 3 parents as well as him would be dragged to the Court. It is on account of the sum totality of the circumstances that it is alleged that the husband of the Petitioner committed suicide. 4.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that, from the material which is annexed to the chargesheet it can hardly be said that, there is any case against the Petitioner u/s 306 of the IPC. In our view, having regard to the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, as also considering the fact that the offence is u/s 306 of the IPC, it would be at the trial that the Petitioner would have to urge such contentions and raise such defences as are available to her.

5.

We do not find this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage to quash the charge-sheet, which has been filed in the concerned Court. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.

6.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)