NARAYAN MALHARI THORATversusVINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.

232                SUPREME[2018]
                           COURT 14REPORTS
                                   S.C.R. 232             [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A                       NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT
                                         v.
                   VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2018)
                              NOVEMBER 28, 2018
B
                          [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
                DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Appellant’s son and daughter-
      in-law were teachers in a school where the respondent was also a
      teacher – Respondent allegedly used to call on the mobile of the
C     appellant’s daughter-in-law and harass her – Despite the efforts of
      the appellant’s son in trying to make the first respondent see reason
      and stop calling his wife, the respondent continued calling her
      repeatedly – Appellant’s son committed suicide – FIR filed against
      the respondent – Quashed – Propriety of – Held: There are definite
D     allegations that the respondent would keep on calling the wife of
      the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her – Allegations are
      supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim
      recorded during investigation – 3-4 days prior to the suicide there
      was an altercation between the victim and the respondent – In the
      light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made
E     definite allegation against the respondent, the High Court was not
      justified in entering into question whether the respondent had the
      requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of
      suicide at this stage when the investigation was yet to be completed
      and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed – Order of the High
F     Court set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 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
G     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
H     question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention
                                      232
    NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT v. VINAYAK DEORAO                              233
               BHAGAT AND ANR.

to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this           A
juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and
charge-sheet, if 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. The judgment
and order under appeal is, therefore, set aside. Since the
                                                                          B
investigation into the matter was stalled as a result of the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the concerned authorities are directed
to complete the investigation as early as possible.
[Paras 13, 14][238-C-G]
      Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659 ;
      M. Mohan v. State represented by     the     Deputy                 C
      Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 : [2011] 3
      SCR 437 ; State of Kerala and Others v. S.
      Unnikrishnan Nair and Others. (2015) 9 SCC 639 :
      [2015] 9 SCR 56 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference                                  D
(2005) 2 SCC 659               referred to          Para 9
[2011] 3 SCR 437               referred to          Para 9
[2015] 9 SCR 56                referred to             Para 9
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
                                                                          E
1487 of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Criminal
Application (APL) No. 380 of 2015.
      Sachin Patil, Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                                                          F
      Pratik R. Bombarde, Jitendra Ashok, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar,, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
      1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.                                   G
       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.
                                                                          H
234                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A             3. The aforesaid FIR No.35/2015 was lodged with Police Station,
      Washim on 14.02.2015 pursuant to information received from the
      appellant. It was alleged that the son and daughter-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-in-law of the appellant and used to harass her;
B
      that despite the efforts of the son of the appellant in trying to make the
      first respondent see reason and stop calling said daughter-in-law, the
      first respondent continued calling her repeatedly; that on 09.02.2015
      there was a verbal altercation between said son and the first respondent
      and that on 12.02.2015 said son committed suicide leaving a suicide
C     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”
D            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 the High Court vide
E     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,
F           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
G           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
H           asking him to keep himself away from such activity. But in spite
            of such an attempt, the applicant neither paid any heed nor stopped
    NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT v. VINAYAK DEORAO                                 235
       BHAGAT AND ANR. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      his activities. The statements recorded by the investigating agency    A
      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
                                                                             B
      Kale, was given an understanding by Sanjay and in spite of
      grievance raised by Sanjay, the applicant was 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        C
      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       D
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          E
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        F
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
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        G
      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           H
236                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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 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
D     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.

E            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
F     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
      your family”, whereupon said Kamatchi, her husband and the child were
G     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
      1
        (2005)2 SCC 659
H     2
        (2011)3 SCC 626
      3
        (2015)9 SCC 639
    NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT v. VINAYAK DEORAO                                  237
       BHAGAT AND ANR. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

under Section 306 IPC, which view was under challenge before this             A
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            B
      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       C
      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 answered is whether         D
      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             E
      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                F
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          G
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         H
      the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment
238                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A           by the respondents. The note, 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
B
            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
C           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
D     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
E     commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet
      to be completed and charge-sheet, if 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
F     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.
G           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.

H     Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal allowed.