SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS.versusVINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.

                  [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1128 : 2024 INSC 75

                  Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors.
                                v.
                   Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr.
             (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023)
                               30 January 2024
           [Vikram Nath* And Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       One R (owner) sold premises in dispute to five persons. Thereafter,
       R committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, naming the
       tenants, who were in possession of premises in question, as
       abettors. On the strength of the same, a complaint was made to
       the local police. The tenants were held in police station and the
       premises in question were demolished with the help of local police.
       Thereafter, two tenants filed complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., which
       was forwarded to the concerned Police Station for registration
       and investigation. The High Court approved the order of the
       investigation.

                                   Headnotes
       Settlement – During the pendency of the petitions, a settlement
       was arrived between the parties:
       Held: During the pendency of the petitions, it appears that some
       settlement has been arrived at between the complainants and
       the 13 accused – The subsequent purchasers (of the premises
       in question) have paid an amount of Rs. 10 lacs to each of the
       tenants, and in lieu thereof, the tenants have filed their affidavits
       stating that they do not wish to further prosecute their complaint
       – The details of the bank drafts have also been mentioned in
       the affidavits filed by the tenants – Based on this settlement, it is
       prayed that these petitions may be allowed, and the proceedings
       arising out of the two criminal complaints u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. be
       quashed – Since, losses of tenants having been compensated,
       any further investigation or trial would be an exercise in futility.
       [Paras 7 and 8]
       Cost – Imposition of – Role of the police personnel in
       conspiring and abetting the crime of the illegal detention of

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                             1129

 Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr.


     the tenants, coercing them to sign the document against their
     will, and getting the premises in question demolished without
     any order from a competent Court:
     Held: It is directed that the six police personnel will suffer a cost
     of Rs. 6.0 lacs for each of the two complainants – Out of the six
     police personnel, three are constables, one is a Head Constable,
     one is a Sub-Inspector, and one is an Inspector – They shall suffer
     a cost of Rs. 50,000/- per Constable, Rs.1,00,000/- by the Head
     Constable, Rs. 1.50 lacs by the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lacs by
     the Inspector, totalling Rs. 6.0 lacs for each case with the above
     distribution. [Para 10]

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                               List Keywords
     Suicide; Suicide note; Tenants; Abettors; Demolition of property;
     Complaint; Investigation; Settlement; Compensation; Cost;
     Imposition of cost on Police Personnel.

                            Case Arising From

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
     (Crl.) No.14585 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLWP No.474 of 2023.
     With
     SLP. (Crl.) Nos.14572, 14734-14735, 15433 and 15294 of 2023
                         Appearances for Parties
     Rahul Chitnis, Hersh Desai, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Chander
     Shekhar Ashri, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, M.
     Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar,
     Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Jitendra Patil, Sagar Nandkumar Pahune
     Patil, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Advs. for the Petitioners.
     Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla,
     Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini Singh,
     Anish R. Shah, Advs. for the Respondents.
1130                                                              [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                                Digital Supreme Court Reports



                           Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                           Judgment
       Vikram Nath, J.
1.     The premises in question were in the possession of three tenants.
       However, for the present, we are concerned with only two tenants,
       namely Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu
       Chaudhary. As the third tenant had not filed any complaint and only
       the above two named complainants have filed the complaint, that is
       why the third tenant is not a party to the proceedings.
2.     The premises in dispute were owned by one Rajeev Ramrao Chavan.
       He sold the property to five persons, namely Sanjay Nathmal Jain,
       Sunil Mishrilal Jain, Manoj Mishrilal Jain, Ghanshyam Bansilal
       Agrawal and Prasannachand Sobhagmal Parakh, vide registered
       sale deed dated 27.10.2021. Unfortunately, Rajeev Ramrao Chavan,
       the vendor of the sale deed dated 27.10.2021, died allegedly having
       committed suicide on 08.03.2022 and having left behind a suicide
       note, naming the tenants as abettors. On the strength of the same,
       a complaint was made to the local police. However, an accidental
       death was registered, but no FIR1 was registered under Section 306
       of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
3.     Soon thereafter, i.e., on 09.03.2022, the tenants were called to the
       concerned Police Station. They were held for about 24 hours, and
       in the meantime, the premises in question were demolished by the
       brother of the deceased-vendor, his widow, and with the support of
       the local police. At the Police Station, the tenants were also forced
       to sign some documents, apparently giving their consent of vacating
       the premises voluntarily.
4.     The two tenants, Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu
       Chaudhary lodged complaint initially with the Police Station, but as
       the same was not acknowledged, they moved an application before
       the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 19733. In the complaint made by the two tenants, 13



1    First Information Report
2    ‘IPC’
3    In short, “Cr.P.C.”
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                      1131

 Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr.


     accused were named, namely Dr. Sanjeev Ramrao Chavan i.e. brother
     of the deceased, Smita Rajeev Chavan i.e. widow of the deceased,
     the five purchasers mentioned above under the sale deed dated
     27.10.2021, and six police personnel namely, Shatrughna Atmaram
     Patil, Jaipal Manikrao Hire, Milind Ashok Bhamare, Suryakant
     Raghunath Salunkhe, Nilesh Subhash More and Sunil Kautik Hatkar.
5.   The learned Magistrate, dealing with the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
     application, instead of directing the police to register the FIR and
     investigate, passed an order on 20.12.2022 for an inquiry under
     Section 202 Cr.P.C., confining it to the involvement of the brother of
     the deceased, widow of the deceased, and the five purchasers. This
     order of the Magistrate was challenged by the tenants/complainants
     before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge vide order dated
     23.03.2023, allowed the revision and directed that the complaint filed
     before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be forwarded to
     the concerned Police Station for registration and investigation.
6.   The order of the Revisional Court dated 23.03.2023 was challenged
     before the High Court by all the 13 accused through separate petitions
     titled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution
     of India. The High Court, while deciding these petitions, not only
     approved the order of the Sessions Judge but also issued further
     directions regarding investigation, by the impugned order dated
     23.10.2023. It is this order which is under challenge before us by
     way of these six petitions. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15433
     of 2023 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15294 of 2023 have
     been filed by the brother of the deceased with respect to the two
     complaints made by the two tenants. Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
     Nos. 14734-14735 of 2023 have been filed by the five purchasers
     under the sale deed dated 27.10.2021 again with respect to the two
     complaints filed by the two tenants. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
     14585 of 2023 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14572 of 2023
     have been filed by the six police personnel again arising out of the
     two complaints filed by the two tenants.
7.   During the pendency of the petitions, it appears that some settlement
     has been arrived at between the complainants and the 13 accused.
     The subsequent purchasers have paid an amount of Rs. 10 lacs to
     each of the tenants, and in lieu thereof, the tenants have filed their
     affidavits stating that they do not wish to further prosecute their
     complaint. The details of the bank drafts have also been mentioned
1132                                                        [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     in the affidavits filed by the tenants along with Criminal Miscellaneous
     Petition No. 8150 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 14734-
     14735 of 2023. Based on this settlement, it is prayed that these
     petitions may be allowed, and the proceedings arising out of the
     two criminal complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be quashed.
8.   From the factual matrix as recorded above, we find that the continuance
     of these two criminal proceedings would not be of any avail once
     the complainant has himself stated to withdraw the complaint. Their
     losses having been compensated, any further investigation or trial
     would be an exercise in futility.
9.   The compensation for the tenants has been given by the subsequent
     purchasers, as stated in the affidavits, apparently for the reason
     that they are now the owners of the property and they have been
     instrumental in carrying out the demolition illegally. The widow of
     the deceased (although not a party before us) and the brother may
     not be having any further interest inasmuch as the property had
     already been sold by the deceased four and half months prior to
     his death. However, what we are not satisfied with is why the police
     personnel have been allowed to go scot-free in a case where they
     had an apparent roll in conspiring and in abetting the crime of the
     illegal detention of the tenants, coercing them to sign the document
     against their will, and getting the premises in question demolished
     without any order from a competent Court.
10. We, accordingly, direct that the six police personnel will suffer a cost
    of Rs. 6.0 lacs for each of the two complainants. Out of the six police
    personnel, three are constables, one is a Head Constable, one is a
    Sub-Inspector, and one is an Inspector. They shall suffer a cost of
    Rs. 50,000/- per Constable, Rs.1,00,000/- by the Head Constable,
    Rs. 1.50 lacs by the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lacs by the Inspector,
    totalling Rs. 6.0 lacs for each case with the above distribution. This
    amount shall be deposited in Account No. 90552010165915 of the
    Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, Canara Bank, Branch
    South Block, Defence Headquarters, within four weeks from today.
    After depositing the said amount in the aforesaid fund, they shall
    file proof of deposit with the Registry of this Court within six weeks
    and also before the Magistrate and the High Court. Upon deposit of
    the said amount, the proceedings of the two complaint cases shall
    stand quashed and closed.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                          1133

 Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr.


11. We, however, make it clear that any observations made and also
    the direction to suffer compensation to the tenants by the six
    police personnel will not be treated as adverse to their interest in
    consideration of their promotions etc. that is to say that this order
    may not be kept in their service records.
12. It is further made clear that if the proof of deposit is not filed within
    the stipulated time, these petitions filed by the police personnel
    would stand dismissed.
13. In light of the above, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15433 of
    2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15294 of 2023 and Special
    Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 14734-14735 of 2023 are allowed. Special
    Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14572 of 2023 and Special Leave Petition
    (Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 are also allowed, subject to fulfilment of
    the aforesaid condition.


     Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan      Result of the case: Special Leave
                                                          Petitions disposed of.