Law is well crystallized by various pronouncements of
the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court. It would be useful
to have a reference of few cases of the Honourable Apex Court
without detailing facts in those cases:
(1) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2002(3) Cri.L.J.
2796,
(2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and
anr, reported at 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3245 (SC).
13. One of leading case on this issue is, Dilip s/o Ramrao
Shirasao and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and anr reported at 2016
ALL MR (Cri) 4328, this Court discussed in detail various
pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court. The ratio of the
said is that it is incumbent upon prosecution to at least show prima
facie case that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet
deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such
material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Admittedly, in this case, the Loan Account of the
complainant was showing outstanding to the tune of
Rs.2,32,689/-. The said aspect is not denied by the prosecution.
Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, was not having any loan
outstanding in his name. Even, according to the prosecution,
Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, went to the Bank of Maharashtra,
Morshi Branch, District Amravati for loan. If previous loan amount
is outstanding and if the applicant, who is Branch Manager of the
said Bank, is refusing to grant any further loan, can be said as act
of a vigilant and prudent banker and if he is not granting any
further loan, it cannot be termed that by such act he instigated
and/or abetted the person to commit suicide.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.63 OF 2016
Santoshkumar Raj Kishor Prasad Singh, Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, &
ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V.M.Deshpande, J.)
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri Anand Deshpande for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J.Khan
for non-applicant No.1/State. None appears for non-applicant
No.2.
3. By presenting this application, the applicant prayed for
quashing of First Information Report (Annexure-C), registered
with Morshi Police Station, District Amravati, vide Crime
No.147/2015, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. The applicant also prayed to stay further
investigation.
4. On 1.2.2016, Notices were issued and Interim Stay
was granted as prayed by the applicant. Non-applicant No.2
Prashant Wamanrao Gawande was duly served, however he chose
not to appear before the Court. Consequently, on 1.9.2016, these
proceedings were admitted for final hearing and the Interim order
was continued.
Office note shows that non-applicant No.2 was also
served with Notice on merits, however on this occasion also he
chose not to appear either personally or through his counsel. The
State also filed a detailed reply on record.
5. The applicant, at the relevant time, was discharging
his duties as Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Morshi
Branch, District Amravati.
6. Non-applicant No.2 Prashant Wamanrao Gawande,
(hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” for the sake of
brevity), was having a Loan Account with the Bank of Maharashtra
at Morshi. His father Wamanrao was also having a Loan Account
in the said Bank. The applicant placed on record an extract of
Statement of Account of the complainant. Authenticity of the said
document is not at all disputed by investigating agency.
7. In this case, deceased is Sudhir Gawande, the real
brother of the complainant. He committed suicide on 12.6.2015
by hanging himself in a bedroom of his house.
On 13.6.2015, the complainant approached to Morshi
Police Station, District Amravati and lodged his report against the
present applicant. Since the report was disclosing commission of
cognizable offence, Morshi Police Station Officer registered an
offence, vide Crime No.147/2015, punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8. After registration of the offence, since the applicant
was apprehending his arrest, he moved an application, vide Misc.
Criminal Bail Application No.529/2015, for grant of pre-arrest bail
and learned Sessions Judge at Amravati on 26.6.2015 was pleased
to grant the pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest. Thereafter,
on 25.1.2016, the applicant filed present proceedings for quashing
of the First Information Report.
9. Learned counsel Shri Anand Deshpande for the
applicant, submitted that First Information Report cannot stand to
scrutiny of law inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the
applicant had an intention to aid or instigate or abet Sudhir to
commit suicide. He submitted that as per Loan Account, on
31.3.2015 there was an outstanding in the name of the
complainant to the extent of Rs.2,32,689/-. In this view of the
matter, it is submitted that even if it is accepted, as stated in the
First Information Report, that on 12.6.2015 Sudhir approached for
fresh loan by restructuring Loan Account and if that request was
refused, it cannot be held as abetment to Sudhir to commit suicide.
He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the First Information Report
since if proceedings are allowed to continue on the basis of such
First Information Report, it will be nothing to compel the applicant
to face trial even if there is no prima facie case against him.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
M.J.Khan for the State, submitted that at this stage averments
made in the First Information Report have to be taken as it is. He
proceeds in his submission on this premise that the First
Information Report shows that on 7-8 occasions Sudhir, the
deceased, visited Bank of Maharashtra, Morshi Branch, District
Amravati wherein the applicant was Branch Manager and there he
requested for restructuring of loan and grant of fresh loan,
however the applicant refused the said request and, therefore, due
to such refusal Sudhir was not keeping good mood. He submitted
that on 12.6.2015 also he along with Sachin, the cousin, again
went to the Bank and came to house at about 2:30 p.m.. At that
time, he brought ten bags of cement, however he did not bring
seeds. Thereafter, since he was not keeping good mood, the
complainant’s mother Smt.Kusum enquired for the same. Upon
that, as per the First Information Report, Sudhir quipped that since
the Branch Manager refused to grant the loan, he will not take
food and ultimately he committed suicide and, therefore, the said
act on the part of the applicant not to grant the loan resulted into
the suicide by hanging by Sudhir. He, therefore, submitted for
dismissal of proceedings.
11. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under:
“If any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Abetment is defined in Chapter V of the Indian Penal
Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code deals with abetment
of a thing and the said provision is quoted herein below:
As per First clause, “if a person instigates any
person to do a particular thing, it can be said that
he has abetted”.
12. Law is well crystallized by various pronouncements of
the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court. It would be useful
to have a reference of few cases of the Honourable Apex Court
without detailing facts in those cases:
(1) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2002(3) Cri.L.J.
2796,
(2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and
anr, reported at 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3245 (SC).
13. One of leading case on this issue is, Dilip s/o Ramrao
Shirasao and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and anr reported at 2016
ALL MR (Cri) 4328, this Court discussed in detail various
pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court. The ratio of the
said is that it is incumbent upon prosecution to at least show prima
facie case that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet
deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such
material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Admittedly, in this case, the Loan Account of the
complainant was showing outstanding to the tune of
Rs.2,32,689/-. The said aspect is not denied by the prosecution.
Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, was not having any loan
outstanding in his name. Even, according to the prosecution,
Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, went to the Bank of Maharashtra,
Morshi Branch, District Amravati for loan. If previous loan amount
is outstanding and if the applicant, who is Branch Manager of the
said Bank, is refusing to grant any further loan, can be said as act
of a vigilant and prudent banker and if he is not granting any
further loan, it cannot be termed that by such act he instigated
and/or abetted the person to commit suicide.
15. In view of the above, we are of view that this Court
must intervene at this stage only and proceedings against the
applicant, who is a Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Morshi
Branch, District Amravati, will require to be terminated.
Consequently, we pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The criminal application is allowed.
(2) First Information Report (Annexure-C), registered with Morshi
Police Station, District Amravati, vide Crime No.147/2015, for
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(3) Needless to mention that any consequent proceeding
registered on such First Information Report also stands quashed.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment