Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Meenabai Deepak Mahale & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No.104 of 2021 with Writ Petition No.105 of 2021 with Writ Petition No.106 of 2021
Decided On : 27-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 226 Constitution of India, Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, 34 IPC - The court analyzed the applicability of various sections of the IPC in the context of a complaint alleging harassment and abetment of suicide. It emphasized that for Section 306 (abetment of suicide) to apply, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was absent in this case. The court also highlighted that mere allegations of harassment over a long period do not suffice to establish the necessary mens rea for abetment. Furthermore, the court found that the provisions of Section 498-A (cruelty) were not met, as there was no recent evidence of cruelty or demands made by the accused. The court concluded that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence, warranting its quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including the husband and relatives of the deceased Sumitra, sought to quash an FIR registered for offences under IPC sections related to cruelty and abetment of suicide. The FIR alleged that Sumitra faced harassment from her in-laws after her marriage in 2004, leading to her suicide in 2020. The petitioners contended that the FIR lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR did not establish a prima facie case for the offences charged. It noted that the allegations of harassment were vague and dated, with no direct link to the suicide. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the act of suicide, which was not present in this case.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, and 34 of the IPC, and whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for abetment of suicide under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused. It also clarified that mere allegations of harassment over a long period do not meet the legal threshold for establishing cruelty under Section 498-A. The court applied the principles established in previous Supreme Court rulings regarding the interpretation of these sections.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners, concluding that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence.
JUDGMENT
Jitendra Jain, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Yagnik, learned counsel APP waives service of notice for respondent no.1-State. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.
2. These three writ petitions have been filed by the husband and his relatives (father, grand-mother, sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner-husband, etc.) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing C.R. No.57 of 2020 dated 25th February 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered by respondent no.1 on the complaint made by respondent no.2 being brother of the deceased-Sumitra. Since the issues involved in all these three writ petitions arise out of the common First Information Report (FIR), all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we propose to deal with Criminal Writ Petition No.105 of 2020 and the facts relating to the said writ petition are discussed for adjudication of the issue raised before the Court.
Facts as per the FIR :-
3. Respondent no.2 had three sisters, youngest being Sumitra. On 10th March 2004, Sumitra married petitioner no.1 Mr.Mukund Vijaysingh Pawar according to the Hindu rituals. As per the FIR, it is stated that after two months of marriage, on refusal by Sumitra to hand over the jewellery to her in-laws the relatives of the husband started harassing Sumitra. On a visit by Sumitra to her parental house, she narrated the harassment to respondent no.2 and her family members. Respondent no.2 pacified Sumitra and requested her to go back to her matrimonial house. It is stated in the FIR that on 14th May 2004, Sumitra consumed poison. However, on recovering from the said incident, she refused to return to her matrimonial house. It is stated by respondent no.2 that at the intervention of the senior members of the Society, Sumitra returned to her matrimonial house. However, the harassment of Sumitra continued by the relatives of petitioner no.1. As per the FIR, Sumitra had approached the Police Station and Women Rights Commission by lodging a complaint. However, on a joint meeting by the family members of respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1, the issue was resolved. Respondent no.2 explained to Sumitra that as she has two children and as she is a part of the society, it is better to stay at matrimonial house which was agreed in the year 2006. However, as per the statement in the FIR, it is stated by respondent no.2 that the deceased Sumitra asked her brother not to visit her matrimonial house since her in-laws did not approve the visit. However, there were regular phone calls between respondent no.2 and deceased Sumitra. It is further stated that 8 days prior to 24th February 2020, respondent no.2 made a phone call to Sumitra. At that time, Sumitra stated that she is being harassed more and would like to leave matrimonial house and stay at parental house. Respondent no.2 agreed to permit Sumitra to stay with them. However, on 24th February 2020 at around 10:00 p.m. respondent no.2 received a phone call from one Mr. Jayansingh Morkar who informed him that his sister Sumitra has passed away. Respondent no.2 thereafter at 1:00 a.m. midnight on 25th February 2020 visited the Government Hospital and saw the dead body of her sister. Respondent no.2 further stated that after two months from the date of marriage, petitioner no.1 and his relatives were harassing Sumitra since she refused to hand over the jewellery and they were suspicious about her character. They used to ill-treat her physically. On being tired with this treatment, Sumitra committed suicide by jumping into the well on 24th February 2020.
Lodging of FIR :-
4. On 25th February 2020 at 19:02 hours, respondent no.2 lodged a complaint on the basis of the above statement and an FIR under Sec
For charges of abetment of suicide and cruelty to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was absent in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and direct or active instigation for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes....
In abetment of suicide cases, clear evidence of mens rea and active involvement is required; mere allegations without proof of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.
The need for evidence of instigation or abetment to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC and the distinction between Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC as different offences.
Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement by the accused, proximate to the suicide, demonstrating a clear mens rea to abet the act. Mere hara....
In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain charges under IPC; specific evidence of instigation or aid is required for abetment of suicide.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
