Read Time: 06 minutes
The division bench of the high court took into consideration the statements of the witnesses, which proved that there was no communication between the deceased and accused, and hence quashed the FIR.
A division bench of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), comprising of Justice Rajesh S. Patil and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, quashed an FIR while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) in a case related to Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.
In the above matter, an FIR came to be filed after a 12-year-old committed suicide on a railway track. The FIR stated that on their way to school the deceased and his sister, visited the applicant's shop. The applicant had a suspicion that the deceased had stolen Rs. 50 from the shop, after which she started shouting and running behind the deceased. The deceased ran away from the place, while the sister and the applicant followed him to the school. Due to the fear of assault and defamation, the deceased ran away from the school, and could not be traced. At around 8 pm, Pundlik Nagar Police Station gave a call to the informant that the boy has committed suicide on the railway track after which the said FIR came to be registered.
The advocate for the applicant argued before the court that the ingredients of Section 305 are not made out therefore there is no offense committed. He also submitted before the court that the statement of the sister was recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In her statement, it is recorded that the deceased had an Rs. 50 note, on being inquired by the sister, the deceased said it’s a fake note. Further, the statement also said that the sister saw the deceased running toward the railway track. Therefore, since there was no communication between the applicant and the deceased no offense is committed.
The advocate for the respondent strongly opposed the application and argued that the applicant had herself asked the deceased to remove money from the cash box and then she suspected that the deceased had stolen Rs. 50. He submitted before the court that the applicant could have waited for the arrival of the deceased to enquire about her Rs. 50. However, she followed the deceased to the school to enquire about the money. The advocate stated that “Raising of unnecessary allegations by a person may be taken otherwise by the person against whom such allegations is made”
The court while allowing the application and quashing the FIR, through the power granted under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code referred to the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 and Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapur, (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held that if the ingredients under Section 305 are not made out then the four steps can be taken to exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the court also stated that the statements of witnesses including the teachers, school authorities, and the adjoining persons show that there was absolutely no dialogue between the applicant and the deceased.
Case Title: Sarla Ratnakar Dhumal vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Please Login or Register
