Pravina D/O. Gajanan Jadhav @ Pravina W/O. Kailas Sapkale v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
1 Cri. Appln. No. 1450-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1450 OF 2019 Pravina D/o Gajanan Jadhav @ Pravina W/o Kailas Sapkale Age : 46 Years, Occ. Service, R/o. Shraddha Colony, Plot No. 24/3, Gat No. 471/A/1, Jalgaon.
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Ofcer, Shanipeth Police Station, Jalgaon Aasha W/o Bharat Sapkale, Age : 35 Years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No.5, Dinkarnagar, Shanipeth, jalgaon ...RESPONDENTS ....
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. G.G. Kadam A.P.P for respondent State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. A I. Deshmukh ....
CORAM
: T.V. NALAWADE AND'
S.M. GAVHANE,JJ.
DATE : 27-11-2019.
JUDGMENT( PER T.V. NALWADE, J] :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal.
2 Cri. Appln. No. 1450-2019.odt The present proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of FIR No. 53/2019 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for the ofences punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequent to fling of proceeding, charge sheet came to be fled so by making amendment the relief is claimed of quashing of the proceeding in R.C.C No 500/2019 which is fled in the aforesaid crime.
3.
The aforesaid crime is registered on the basis of report given by respondent No.2 Smt. Aasha. In the report informant has contended that present applicant had harassed the deceased Bharat, husband of the informant and she was insisting that the compensation amount in respect of the land of the family which was acquired for the public purpose should not be given to the sisters of Bharat and it should be disbursed only amongst brothers of Bharat. It is contended that she was also asking for her share in the compensation which Ramesh Sapkale, brother of father-in-law of the informant was to get. It is contended that as the applincant is working in police force he was creating presure on the deceased and so on 11.03.2019 in the evening her husband committed suicide. It is her contention that before committing suicide, her husband had called her on mobile and had informed that due to
3 Cri. Appln. No. 1450-2019.odt harassment of present applicant he was frustrated and he had consumed insecticide Thymate to commit suicide. It is contended that the relative had rushed to the feld but in the mean time the deceased had returned to home and from there he was shifted to the Civil Hospital Jalgaon. It is contended that when the deceased was under treatment, the applicant had said that she would bear the expenses of the treatment provided that her name is not taken by the informant to put blame of her in respect of suicide attempt of Bharat. It is contended that this proposal was not accepted. Bharat died on 21.03.2019 and the report came to be given on 21.03.2019. 4.
The submissions made show that one Totaram was common ancestor of the family of the informant and family of the applicant. Totaram left behind two sons by name Ganpat and Ramesh. Ramesh is alive but Ganpat is dead. Ganpat had left behind three sons by name Kailas, Satish and Bharat and he had left behind three daughters also. Kailas is dead and present applicant is the widow of the Kailash. This relationship needs to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of the allegations made against the applicant. The submissions made show that no compensation is as yet given in hand of anybody by the acquiring body. Thus, the amount of
4 Cri. Appln. No. 1450-2019.odt compensation was not collected and so there was no question of distribution of the compensation amount amongst the legal heirs of the Ganpat. If anybody dispute, the dispute could have been taken to civil Court. In ordinary course, the branch of the Ganpat could not have claimed any share in the compensation to which Ramesh was entitled. Further, the present applicant is a widow, though she is in police force. There is no record of suicide note and the FIR was not given immediately if the deceased had really disclosed that he was committing suicide only due to harassment of the applicant. There is clear possibility that only to presurize the applicant and to see that she does not claim any share in the compensation such report is given.
In any case, on the basis of allegations as they are, inference is not possible that, there was intention of the present applicant as mentioned in the Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code of the abetment of the suicide. Thus, even on the basis of the allegations made as they are, the ofence of the abettment of suicide cannot be proved against the applicant. It will be abuse of process of law, if the applicant is directed to face the trial for the aforesaid ofence.
ORDER
1.
Application is allowed.
5 Cri. Appln. No. 1450-2019.odt Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause 'C' and 'C-1'
3.
Rule made absolute in those terms.
(S.M. GAVHANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) YSK/