M.G. GIRATKAR, J.

1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. 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 non-applicant 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 quarreled 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.

3. Heard Mr.A.S.Ambatkar, learned Counsel holding for Mr.Pravin Agrawal, 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.

4. Heard Ms T.H.Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. None appears for the respondent no.2.

5. 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.

6. 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 conditio