Bombay High Court
Subhash Rambhau Kosalge And 2 Others vs State Of Mah., Thr. Ps Mahagaon Tq … on 12 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2497-DB
1 apl1204.2019..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) 1204 OF 2019
1. Subhash Rambhau Kosalge,
aged about 69 yrs,
2. Sau Mangala Subahsh Kosalge,
aged about 62 yrs,
3. Atish s/o Subhash Kosalge,
aged about 40 yrs,
All the above applicants
resident of Dnyaneshwar Nagar,
Pusad, District Yavatmal ......APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Mahagaon,
Tq. Mahagaon, District Yavatmal
2. Chaitanya Sitaram Pawar,
aged adult,
r/o. Ijani, Mahagao,
Tq. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal. .....NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Radhika Raskar, Advocate for applicants,
Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No 1/State.
Mr. R.R. Vyas, Advocate for non-applicant No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 12.03.2025
2 apl1204.2019..odt
JUDGMENT (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the
application is taken up for final hearing.
2. The applicants seek to quash First Information Report
(for short-‘FIR’) dated 03.09.2019, bearing Crime No. 275/2019,
registered with Vasantnagar Police Station, Mahagaon, for the
offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ” IPC“) and proceedings in
Regular Criminal Case (RCC) No. 105/2022 pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahagaon, pursuant to the
said FIR.
3. Factual matrix:
(a) The informant/non-applicant no. 2 is the brother
of the deceased Gaurav Sitaram Pawar. Deceased Gaurav, pursuant
to the advertisement, applied for the post of clerk at Swargiya
Rambhau Koslage Arts and Science College, Pokhari. On
26.06.2009, he was interviewed and then applicant No. 1 Subhash
asked him to meet him. Accordingly, when he met applicants No. 1
and 2, at that time, they demanded Rs. 15 lakhs for appointing
3 apl1204.2019..odthim as a Clerk. Out of the demand, the deceased Gaurav paid them
Rs. 10 Lakhs and asked them to deduct the balance of Rs. 5 Lakh
from his salary. Despite receiving money and assurance, they never
appointed him as a Clerk but appointed him as a ‘Librarian’ in the
‘Sane Guruji Sarwajanik Wachanalay’. Then, on 01.09.2018,
applicant No. 2 asked him to resign from the said post, and
accordingly, she took his resignation. Despite the assurance and
obtaining money from Gaurav, they did not give him appointment as
a Clerk and thereby cheated him so on 05.01.2019, deceased
Gaurav lodged report against the applicants which came to be
registered vide Crime No. 14/2019 at Mahagaon Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
(b) After registration of the crime, the applicants
threatened Gaurav of dire consequences and asked him to withdraw
the complaint filed against them, else they would implicate him in a
false complaint and also would kill him; therefore, Gaurav was fed
up by the harassment at the hands of the applicants. The deceased
Gaurav requested social worker Panjabrao Naik and others to
intervene in the matter, but in vain. It is also alleged that on
31.08.2019, applicant No. 3 with two unknown persons came to the
4 apl1204.2019..odt
house of Gaurava, threatened him to withdraw the complaint and
asked to appear in the High Court and give statement as per the say
of their advocate else they would commit rape on his wife. Due to
the said harassment, on 2.9.2019, Gaurav was upset and committed
suicide by hanging himself in his house.
(c) Therefore, non-applicant No. 2, the brother of the
deceased, lodged a report against the applicants alleging that they
have abetted the deceased Gaurav to commit suicide. Based on the
complaint, the offence came to be registered against the applicants
vide Crime No. 275/2019, with Vasantnagar Police Station,
Mahagaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Investigating Agency, during
the investigation, recovered and seized one chit in the handwriting
of the deceased Gaurav under panchanama. The chit was sent to
the handwriting expert to obtain his opinion. Upon completion of
the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet
against the applicants.
4. Aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the applicants have
approached this Court. During the pendency of the application, a
charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the applicants amended their
5 apl1204.2019..odt
application. By order dated 29.08.2022, this Court ” Admitted” the
matter and stayed further proceedings in R.C.C. No. 105/2022
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mahagaon.
5. Mrs. Raskar, the learned Counsel for the applicants,
vehemently contended that the alleged suicide note on which the
prosecution is relying is undated and unsigned and, therefore,
cannot be taken into consideration as evidence against the
applicants. She further drew our attention to the letter/suicide note
written by the deceased addressed to his wife and another letter
addressed to the villagers and tried to point out discrepancies in
both the letters about date, signature, and handwriting therein. This
creates suspicion about the deceased’s writing in the letter.
Therefore, she has submitted that the letter written to the wife
appears to be concocted and an afterthought since the allegations
are entirely false and warrant indulgence at the hands of this Court.
It is argued that the deceased was working with Sane Guruji
Sarvajanik Wachanalaya and had no concern with Swargiya
Rambhau Koslage Arts and Science College, Pokhari, therefore,
there is no question to offer a job as a Clerk to the deceased, so
6 apl1204.2019..odt
also question of extracting Rs. 10 lakhs from him does not occur.
Moreover, the applicants were not members of the Selection
Committee to select the clerk.
(a) The learned Counsel has further canvassed that
none of the statements of the witnesses denotes that the applicants
have committed a crime. The statement of witness Panjabrao, the
rival of the applicant no. 1, cannot be considered as he might have
stated against the applicants due to a personal grudge. Other
witnesses have not said anything against the applicants. Therefore,
she submitted that this is a fit case to invoke powers under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Code”).
(b) To buttress her submissions, she has relied upon the
following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of
Haryana and Ors Vs. Bhajanlal and Others (1992 Supp(1)SCC 335)
(“Bhajanlal”), Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhishmabhai Karmur
and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat and anr (2017(9)SCC 641) (“Parbatbhai
Ahir”), State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors (2019(10)
SCC 188 (“Indrajit Kundu”) and the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Lata w/o Pramod Dangre Vs. State of Maharashtra and
ors(Cri. Writ Petition No. 866/2021) and urged that in view of the
law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it appears that no prima
7 apl1204.2019..odt
facie case is made out against the applicants as alleged since
nothing has been brought on record to show that soon before the
death of the deceased, the applicants abetted him to commit
suicide. Hence, urged that this is a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 482 CrPC.
6. Per contra, Mr. Joshi, the learned AGP for respondent No.
1 and Mr. Vyas, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, resisted
the application on the ground that the material on record
categorically depicts that soon before the death, the applicants have
abetted deceased Gaurav to commit suicide. The learned Counsel
have also drawn our attention to the suicide note and the
statements of the witnesses. They further submitted that after the
completion of the investigation, sufficient material was found
against the applicants, and therefore, a charge sheet was filed. The
specimen signature, handwriting and suicide note written by the
deceased have been sent for the opinion of a handwriting expert.
There is ample material on record against the applicants to show
that they had harassed the deceased soon before his death.
Therefore, they prayed for the rejection of the application.
8 apl1204.2019..odt
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the FIR, Charge Sheet, record, and the judgments relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the applicants.
In order to resolve controversy in the matter, it would be
necessary to refer to Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, which read
thus:
107-Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a
thing, who–
(First).– Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly).– Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly).– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
306. Abetment of suicide. :-
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
The question that arose for consideration is ‘ whether the
averments in the suicide note coupled with the statement of witnesses
that due to harassment at the hands of the applicants and the allegations
that they were threatening deceased to withdraw the case filed against
9 apl1204.2019..odtthem vide Crime No. 14/2019 at Mahagaon Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of
the IPC, is sufficient material against the applicants to attract ingredients
of section 306?’
8. It is pertinent to note that on 05.01.2019, deceased
Gaurav lodged report against the applicants vide Crime No.
14/2019 alleging that they have demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from him to
appoint him as a ‘Clerk’ but instead of appointing him as a Clerk
appointed as “Librarian” in ‘Swargiya Sane Guruji Sarvajanic
Wachnalaya’ and then asked him to resign from that post from
01.09.2018. They have neither given an appointment nor refunded
the money as assured. So, he lodged a report against them that they
had cheated him and grabbed the amount. The said case is pending
against them.
9. It also appears from connected Criminal Application No.
708/2019 that being aggrieved by the complaint, the applicants
moved the application on 16.07.2019, in which this Court, vide
order dated 05.08.2019, added deceased Gaurav as respondent No.
2 and issued a notice to him, returnable on 03.09.2019. The said
notice was served on him. It further prima facie reveals from
10 apl1204.2019..odtstatement of witness Sunil Naik that ‘on 31.08.2019, applicant No. 3
Atish with two unknown persons came to the house of deceased,
and threatened him to appear in the High Court and give statement
as per say of their advocate, else, they would commit rape on his
wife. It also seems from the statements of witnesses Sunil,
Panjabrao, Rahul, Babusingh and Sitaram that accused No. 3 used
to threaten deceased to withdraw the case else they would kill him
or commit rape on his wife. It is also prima facie evident that during
the investigation, on 02.09.2019, the Investigating Officer seized the
suicide note from the spot under panchanama and sent it to the
handwriting expert for verification along with his other
handwriting. One letter was also recovered, which was addressed to
the villagers, wherein he mentioned the date as 02.09.2019. On
31.08.2019, applicant No.3 visited the house of the deceased, and
immediately thereafter, on 02.09.2019, the deceased committed
suicide.
10. Likewise, the post-mortem report categorically indicates
that the probable cause of death “may be asphyxia as result of
hanging.”
11 apl1204.2019..odt
11. Perusal of the suicide note prima facie depicts that “the
deceased in the suicide note wrote that applicant No. 1 Subhash has
ruined his life.” It is pertinent to note that as per the order dated
05.08.2019, this Court has issued a notice to the deceased Gaurav
to appear before the Court on 03.09.2019. As per the statement of
witness Sunil, on 31.08.2019, applicant No. 3, with two others, had
been to the house of Gaurav, and notice was served on him to
appear in Court on 03.09.2019. One day before the appearance
date, i.e. on 02.09.2019, the deceased committed suicide.
12. Thus, careful perusal of the statements of witnesses, the
suicide note, the post-mortem report, the FIR, the charge sheet and
the record of the connected Criminal Application No.708/2019,
prima facie, show that “applicant no. 3 used threat to kill Gaurav or
to commit rape on his wife”, so he was disappointed. In addition, in
the suicide note, the deceased wrote that ‘ Applicant no. 1 has ruined
his life.’ Moreover, to verify the authenticity of the suicide note, it
was sent to handwriting experts, but the report is yet to be received.
Likewise, to ascertain the genuineness of the statements of
witnesses, it would be appropriate to let the trial proceed to
determine the veracity of the facts against applicants No.1 and 3.
12 apl1204.2019..odt
Thus, a conjoint reading of the statements of the witnesses, the
suicide note with the post-mortem report, and the charge sheet
prima facie indicates the allegations of the instigation and abetment
attributed to the applicant Nos. 1 and 3. However, no sufficient
material is brought on record against applicant no. 2 to denote that
she had instigated or abetted the deceased soon before his death.
13. In Bhajanlal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid
down the guidelines to be adhered to while exercising inherent
powers under 482 and formulated the same in paragraph 102 of the
judgment, as under:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
13 apl1204.2019..odt
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and
personal grudge.
In Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in
paragraph 16 laid down the broad principles while exercising
powers under 482, as under:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court
or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not
confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
to quash a First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions
of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if
the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
14 apl1204.2019..odt
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power;
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude, it has to be exercised (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court;
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case, and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision
to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons
for serious offences;
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may, in
appropriate situations, fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if, in view of the compromise between
the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
15 apl1204.2019..odt
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender
is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance.
14. The learned Division Bench of this Court, in Lata w/o
Pramod Dangre (supra), after considering various judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, has opined thus:
“(23) Therefore, it becomes clear that the principles that
have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned judgments in the context of Sections
107 and 306 of the IPC, have to be applied to the facts
of the individual case to conclude, as to whether the
criminal proceedings deserve to be interdicted at this
stage of FIR and charge-sheet itself or that the accused
deserves to face trial.”
In the case of Indrajit Kundu, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that “whether the acts committed by the accused will
constitute a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of
suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in the facts
and circumstances of each case.”
15. In the background of the above discussion and the
mandate laid down in the decision referred to supra, it is evident
16 apl1204.2019..odt
that to constitute a direct or indirect act of incitement to the
commission of suicide is a matter that is required to be considered
in the facts and circumstances of each case.
16. In the wake of the above, prima facie sufficient material
emerged against applicants nos. 1 and 3 to proceed with the trial.
Therefore, in our opinion, the mandate laid down in the decisions
relied upon by the applicants is not helpful in support of their
application. However, prima facie, no material appears against
applicant no. 2 for instigating deceased Gaurav for suicide. As a
result, we are of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings
against applicant no. 2 would result in an abuse of the process of
law. However, we have no hesitation to hold that it is not a fit case
to exercise jurisdiction U/s 482 of the code as far as applicant Nos. 1
and 3 are concerned and as far as applicant No. 2 is concern no case
is made out, hence, we allow the application in respect of applicant
No.2 and reject it against applicant No.1 and 3. Accordingly, we
answer the question partly in the affirmative to the extent of
applicants No. 1 and 3 and negative against applicant no.2. In the
result, the following order is passed:
17 apl1204.2019..odt
ORDER
i) The application is partly allowed.
ii) First Information Report dated 03.09.2019, bearing
Crime No. 275/2019, registered with Vasantnagar Police
Station, Mahagaon, for offence punishable under
Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and initiation of Regular Criminal Case No. 105/2022
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Mahagaon pursuant to the said FIR is quashed and
set aside to the extent applicant No. 2.
iii) The application of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 is
dismissed.
iv) Inform the learned Trial Court accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
R. Belkhede,
Personal Assistant
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/03/2025 16:58:11