No evidence of instigation was found sufficient to support charges under IPC Sections 306 and 506(2).

JUDGMENT :

(Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

1. In view of the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 20^th September 2024, the aforesaid petition has been placed before us and is accordingly taken up for hearing.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1–State. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No.515 of 2017, registered with the Khar Police Station, Mumbai, qua him, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. Facts in brief are as under:-

The petitioner is a bussinessman manufacturing electrical control panels in the name of ‘Elec Mac Corporation’ since 20 years. It appears that Navroz Tejani (deceased) was running a business of household articles under the name and style, ‘Tejani Stores’ at Bandra for more than 50 years. It appears that the petitioner and his family had good relations with Tejani family i.e. the deceased's family, till the registration of the FIR. It appears that the petitioner had advanced loans to the deceased-Navroz Tejani and his son-Arshad Tejani and had also executed loan agreements with respect to the same. It further appears that on 27^th October 2015, the petitioner’s wife advanced a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to Navroz Tejani/Arshad Tejani, by way of loan; and that this loan was advanced without a written agreement, but, later was made part of the Agreement dated 17^th March 2017.

5. Mr. Moghe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the prosecution case is taken as it stands, no offence as alleged, is made out qua the petitioner. He submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner i.e. the suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Himaram Parmar, does not even remotely make out a case under any of the provisions, as alleged against the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that the case in hand squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others , [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335]. Mr. Moghe also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Subhash Ramgopal Bharuka Vs State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2211:(2020) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 410 ; Imran s/o. Masood Khan and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, [2019 ALL MR(Cri) 2838]; Amit s/o. Ashok Naharkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Another, [2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4768]; Suhas @ Pappu s/o. Sarjerao Kakade and Another Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another, [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1684]; and Ramesh Someshwarrao Tayde and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another, [2016 ALL MR(Cri) 5049], in support of his submission for quashing the FIR/charge-sheet, qua the petitioner.

6. Learned AP.P. submitted that the suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Himaram Parmar clearly reveals the petitioner’s complicity in the crime.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also supported the learned AP.P. He submitted that the suicide note as well as the statement of Ranchod Parmar, is sufficient to prima facie show that the petitioner is liable for the offences, for which charge-sheet has been filed against him.

8. Navroz Tejani committed suicide on 24^th