Suresh S/O. Machindra Bhapkar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 CriApln 1602/18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1602 OF 2018 [1] Suresh S/o Machindra Bhapkar, APPLICANTS Age 38 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kharatwadi, Post Pimpalgaonpisa, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar [2] Pandurang S/o Raghunath Ithape, Age 66 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Erondoli, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar [3] Bhagwan S/o Raghunath Ithape, Age 64 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Erondoli, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar V E R S U S [1] The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS [2] The Police Station Incharge Belwandi Police Station, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar [3] Arjun S/o Rangnath Bhapkar, Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kharatwadi, Post.Pimpalgaonpisa, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate for the applicants Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No.3

2 CriApln 1602/18 CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER: T.V. NALAWADE, J.] :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both the sides, this application is taken up for final hearing. Heard both the sides.

2.

Present proceeding is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.I83/2018 registered with Belwandi Police Station, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. The case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of report given by respondent No.3-Arjun Bhapkar.

3.

In the F.I.R., some dispute which the deceased Bapu Bhapkar was having with Bhagwan Ithape and Pandurang Ithape is mentioned. It is contended that the land dispute was decided in favour of deceased, but the present applicants had continued to harass the deceased. One incident had taken place on 18.04.2018, in which Pandurang Ithape and Bhagwan Ithape had picked-up quarrel with deceased and

3 CriApln 1602/18 deceased disclosed about this incident first to the first informant-Arjun Bhapkar. The deceased had informed that he had applied for taking connection of electricity for his well and quotation was also filed. He had disclosed that, the poles of electric supply were required to be fixed in the field of Ithape but they were taking objection to that, and so, he was feeling harassed. He had also disclosed that applicant No.1 Suresh Bhapkar was instigating Ithape to act against the deceased. The allegations are made that in incident dated 19.04.2018, when deceased had gone to village Tadegaon to attend marriage, applicant No.1Suresh had picked up quarrel with the deceased at the marriage place. This incident was also not witnessed by the first informant.

4.

The deceased has not left behind the suicidenote. There will be evidence of first informant in the aforesaid form, which is of hearsay nature. In respect of aforesaid specific incident, there would be evidence of other witnesses. Even if that evidence is considered as it is, it cannot be said that the applicants had intentionally done anything which can be called as abetment of suicide. If deceased wanted to take supply of electricity, there was ample power of Electricity Company to fix poles in the field of applicant Nos.2 and 3 and they could not have prevented Electricity Company from taking such step.

4 CriApln 1602/18 No record of filing quotation or taking objection of applicant Nos.2 and 3 is there in police papers. In view of such nature of evidence, this Court hold that it will be unnecessary harassment to the applicants if they were asked to face the trial for the aforesaid offence. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order :-

O R D E R

[1] Application is allowed.

[2] Relief is granted to the applicants in terms of prayer clause "B".

[3] Rule made absolute in above terms.

[SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] SRM/3/9/18