IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prasanna B. Varale, Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.
Sharad Darade – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1806 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1538 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1653 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1809 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1808 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1811 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1812 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1813 Of 2021, Writ Petition No. 1807 Of 2021
Decided On : 08-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding deceased and fir (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners' common arguments against fir (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's evaluation of why fir lacks substantial basis (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's rationale for quashing the fir based on legal standards (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 5. final orders quashing fir and affirmation of previous proceedings (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT :
Prasanna B. Varale, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at admission stage itself.
2. Though these bunch of Petitions are filed at the instance of individual Petitioners, in all these Petitions by way of principal prayers of quashment of first information report bearing No. 36 of 2021 dated 09th March, 2021, registered with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 506, 389, 120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “IPC”) read with Sections 3 (1)(N), 3(1)(P), 3(2)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) is sought for or/and by way of interim prayers, protection from coercive action is also sought for, as such, the Petitions are clubbed together and taken up for hearing with consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties.
3. C.R. No. 36 of 2021 is registered at the instance of Abhinav Mohanbhai Delkar, who is one of the Respondent in these Petitions and son of Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). It is stated in the first information report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) that deceased was a prominent tribal leader and was representing area/constituency, namely, Dadra and Nagar Haveli since 1989 as Member of Parliament. On 21st February, 2021, deceased along with driver Ashok Patel and private bodyguard Nandu Wankhede reached Mumbai for attending some Court matter. The deceased lodged in Sea Green South Hotel, Marine Drive. On 22nd February, 2021 deceased committed suicide by hanging in Room No. 512 and this information was intimated to Abhinav Delkar, son of deceased, through driver Ashok Patel. Immediately in the evening Respondent - Abhinav Delkar reached Mumbai and returned back to Silvasa with dead body of deceased. On 01st March, 2021, Abhinav Delkar again reached Mumbai and made inquiry with police authorities attached to Marine Drive Police Station about the suicide of his father and it was informed to him by investigating officer that deceased left a suicide note as well the minutes of Parliamentary Privilege Committee (hereinafter referred to as “said committee”). As Abhinav Delkar was to perform certain religious rituals and as he was not in fit mental condition, his statement was not recorded on 01st March, 2021. After completing the religious rituals Abhinav Delkar again reached Mumbai and his statement was then recorded on 09th March, 2021 and the same is treated as FIR.
4. We may refer to FIR again in detail at later part of this judgment, at this stage, we may state that in the said FIR it is stated that deceased was subjected to an ill-treatment, harassment and defamation at the instance of certain persons. It is also stated in the FIR that this ill-treatment and harassment was under the orders of Mr. Praful Khoda Patel, Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. As deceased was unable to bear this ill-treatment and harassment, he committed suicide. Thus, it was submitted in the FIR that all these Petitioners by hatching a conspiracy created such an atmosphere of pressure and depression which led deceased to end his life by committing suicide.
5. Now the persons against whom the grievance is raised are either Government Officials or private individuals. By following tabular chart, a ready refere
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Mahendra Singh and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana
Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Asharfi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. state of Maharashtra and Others
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Suhas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Atul Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Pramod Shriram Telgote Vs. State of Maharashtra
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another
S. M. Datta Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Mohan Chopra and Others
Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Narayan Malhari Thorad Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Another
Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and Others
Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
Ashrafi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another
AI
In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without a positive act proximate to the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading the deceased to c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear mens rea and active act to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide in cases of....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, which was not present in this case.
For a charge of abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient without a dire....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offense of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires the presence of mens rea and intention on the part of the accused,....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.