LexNARAYAN MALHARI THORAT versus VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT v. VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2018) NOVEMBER 28, 2018 [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 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 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 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 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 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 [2018] 14 S.C.R. 232 232 A B C D E F G H 233 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 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 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 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 (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 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. 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. 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. NARAYAN MALHARI THORAT v. VINAYAK DEORAO BHAGAT AND ANR. A B C D E F G H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R. 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 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.