1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1487           OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7933 of 2018)

NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT …Appellant

VERSUS

VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed against  the  judgment  and order  dated

28.03.2016  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,

Nagpur Bench at  Nagpur allowing Criminal  Application No.380 of

2015  preferred  by  the  first  respondent  and  thereby  quashing  the

proceedings instituted against him vide FIR No.35/2015.

3. The aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 was lodged with Police Station,

Washim  on  14.02.2015  pursuant  to  information  received  from  the

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  2

appellant.   It  was  alleged  that  the  daughter  and  son-in-law of  the

appellant were teachers in a village in a Zila Parishad School where

the first respondent was also a teacher; the first respondent used to call

on the mobile of the daughter of the appellant and used to harass her;

that despite the efforts of the son-in-law in trying to make the first

respondent  see  reason  and  stop  calling  said  daughter,  the  first

respondent continued calling her repeatedly;  that on 09.02.2015 there

was  a  verbal  altercation  between  the  son-in-law  and  the  first

respondent and that on 12.02.2015 said son-in-law committed suicide

leaving a suicide note.  True translation of said suicide note is to the

following effect:

“Sir  Police  Station  Officer,  I  humbly request that my family life has been ruined by Vinayak Bhagat & therefore he should not be pardoned this is humble request & he should be hanged till death this is my last wish”

4. After  the  crime  was  registered,  the  first  respondent  had

preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by

the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Washim on 21.02.2015.  The

matter  was  carried  further  by  filing  Criminal  Application

[ABA]No.96 of 2015 in the High Court.  The prayer was rejected by

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  3

the High Court vide order dated 07.04.2015.  It was observed by the

High Court:

“…  …  …After  hearing  the  learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for  the  State  and  on  the  backdrop  of  their submissions, I have gone through the material placed on record as well  as presented for  my perusal by the learned APP.  Though, it was an attempt of the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged material against the applicant of committing mischief is only a piece of paper i.e. so-called  suicide  note.   The  submission  was, merely on the basis of this material, one cannot reach  to  a  conclusion  of  either  intention  or abatement  for  attracting  Section  306  of  IPC. On a perusal of the report, it clearly reveals that it was not only a casual or occasional attempt of the  applicant  or  a  friendly  association  of  the applicant with his colleague.  The report itself states  that  the  applicant  was  constantly establishing contact on mobile phone with the wife of the victim.  The report  states that the attempt was made to give an understanding to the applicant asking him to keep himself away from  such  activity.   But  in  spite  of  such  an attempt, the applicant neither paid any heed nor stopped his activities.  The statements recorded by the  investigating  agency of  the  father  and mother of the victim Sanjay clearly indicate that though,  initially  the  relations  between  the couple  and  the  applicant  were  homely  and informal, the applicant started calling the wife of Sanjay constantly.  Just 3-4 days earlier to the death of Sanjay, the applicant, who had been to the grocery shop of one Anand Kale, was given an  understanding  by  Sanjay  and  in  spite  of grievance raised  by Sanjay,  the  applicant  was

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  4

giving phone calls to the wife of Sanjay.  Sanjay was  thus  carrying  mental  pressure  and depression.   These  facts  are  recorded  in  the statement of the mother of Sanjay.  It will also be  interesting  to  note  what  reveals  from  the statement of the wife of Sanjay.  The wife of Sanjay in clear and unambiguous words stated that the applicant was continuously calling her in  spite  of  the  understanding  given  by  her husband as well as by herself.”

5. The view taken by the High Court as aforesaid was challenged

by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3497 of 2015 but this Court

rejected the challenge on 29.04.2015 finding no merit in the Special

Leave Petition.

6. The  first  respondent,  thereafter,  filed  Criminal  Application

No.380 of 2015 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking

quashing of the aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 registered pursuant to the

reporting by the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section

306 IPC.  By way of interim relief, stay of further proceedings in

connection with the Crime was also sought.  It is a matter of record,

that the investigation in the Crime has not been concluded.

7. The challenge raised by the first respondent was accepted by

the High Court.  After referring to the facts that the first respondent

used to call on the mobile of the daughter-in-law and that there were

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  5

heated  arguments  between  the  son  of  the  appellant  and  the  first

respondent, the High Court observed as under:

“The aforesaid indicates that there is no material  whatsoever  even  of  a  prima  facie nature to establish that the applicant had either an intention to aid or instigate or abet Sanjay to commit  suicide.   There is  no reference to any  active  or  direct  act  on  the  part  of  the applicant  which  led  said  Sanjay  to  commit suicide.   Similarly,  there  is  neither  any instigation nor any intentional act done which compelled  the  son  of  non-applicant  no.2  to commit  suicide.   Even the  chit  found in the pocket  of  the deceased does not  contain any such  material  to  indicate  any  instigation  or abetment  on  the  part  of  the  applicant  herein that could be treated as having led Sanjay to commit suicide.”

The decision of the High Court and the order quashing the FIR

is presently under challenge.

8. We heard  Mr.  Sachin  Patil,  Advocate  for  the  appellant,  Mr.

Pratik R. Bombarde, Advocate for the respondent and Mr. Nishant

Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the State.

9. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court

was not justified in entering into questions whether the record prima

facie established that the respondent had requisite intention in order

to bring the matter within the confines of Section 306 IPC and in

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  6

quashing the FIR in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for first respondent

relied upon decisions of this Court in Netai Dutta  v.  State of W.B.1;

M. Mohan  v.  State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police2 and; State of Kerala and Others  v.  S. Unnikrishnan Nair

and  Others.3 in  support  of  his  submission  that  in  exercise  of

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court was justified

in quashing the FIR.

10. In Netai Dutta (supra) the suicide note had alleged that Netai

Dutta had engaged the victim in several wrong doings; that the victim

was required to  be  at  the  workplace  during the  day and night  on

certain occasions; and that though he had reported the fact that he

could leave the workplace only by 8 o’ clock in the evening when all

the restaurants were closed nothing was done by said Netai Dutta.  It

was in the backdrop of these facts that this Court found the case to be

fit to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. In  M. Mohan (supra) A-3 was stated to have told Kamatchi

(victim) that “if you want to go by a car, you have to bring a car from

1 (2005)2 SCC 659 2 (2011)3 SCC 626 3 (2015)9 SCC 639

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  7

your family”, whereupon said Kamatchi, her husband and the child

were required to take public transport.  Few days thereafter the victim

committed  suicide.   After  filing  of  the  charge-sheet  A-3  was

summoned under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC.  In proceedings

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the charges under

Sections 498A and 304B IPC but held that the accused had to face

trial for the offence under Section 306 IPC, which view was under

challenge before this Court.  In the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court made following observations in paragraphs 48 and

49:

“48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of  instigation,  there  are  even  no  allegations against the appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place  on 18-1-2005.  Undoubtedly,  the  deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day- to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are  not  very  uncommon.  Human  sensitivity  of each  individual  differs  from  person  to  person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and  self-respect.  Different  people  behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the  family.  But  the  question that  remains to  be

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  8

answered  is  whether  the  appellants  can  be connected with that  unfortunate  incident  in  any manner?

49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that  the  appellants  are  not  even  remotely connected  with  the  offence  under  Section  306 IPC. It may be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the husband of the deceased Anandraj  (A-1)  and Easwari  (A-3)  are  pending adjudication.”

12. In  State  of  Kerala  and  others (supra)  the  person  who

committed  suicide  was  a  CBI  official  investigating  into  a  crime.

According to the suicide note left behind by the victim, two officials

of CBI, who were in fact juniors to him, an advocate as well as Chief

Judicial Magistrate were statedly responsible for the suicide.  Again,

considering  the  facts,  this  Court  upheld  the  decision  of  the  High

Court  in  quashing  the  FIR.   The  observations  of  this  Court  in

paragraph 12 are noteworthy.  Said paragraph 12 was to the following

effect:

“12. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the  suicide  note  which  forms  the  fulcrum  of  the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we  have  reproduced  it  hereinbefore.  On  a  plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note,

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  9

except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could  happen.  That  apart,  the  allegation  is  really vague. It also baffles reason, for the Department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the Court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be  put  in  trouble  by  the  officers  belonging  to  the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the advocate.”

13. We  now consider  the  facts  of  the  present  case.   There  are

definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the

wife  of  the  victim  on  her  mobile  and  keep  harassing  her  which

allegations are supported by the  statements  of  the mother  and the

wife of the victim recorded during investigation.  The record shows

that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the

victim and the first respondent.  In the light of these facts, coupled

with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against

first  respondent,  the  High Court  was not  justified in entering into

question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to

aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide.  At this juncture

when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)

                                                                                                  10

any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into

the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on

part of the respondent.

14. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf

of the appellant.  The judgment and order under appeal is, therefore,

set aside and the present appeal is allowed.   Since the investigation

into the matter was stalled as a result of the petition under Section

482  Cr.P.C.,  we  direct  the  concerned  authorities  to  complete  the

investigation as early as possible.

15. We have not and shall not be taken up to have expressed any

opinion on the merits of the matter which shall be considered at the

appropriate stage.

16. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

…...…….…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

.……………..……..…………….……………J.   (Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi; November 28, 2018.

Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising  out of  SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018)