Court Denies Quashing of FIR, Cites Prima Facie Evidence of Direct Involvement in Deceased's Suicide
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, denied the plea to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against Madhav, accused of abetting the suicide of his business partner, Anand Khante. The division bench, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, emphasized that the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution.
The case revolves around the suicide of Anand Khante, who allegedly took his life due to harassment related to a failed business venture with the applicant, Madhav. According to the FIR, the deceased and Madhav had entered into a business partnership involving the provision of shed-net materials to farmers, funded through loans. However, Madhav allegedly did not fulfill his part of the business, leading to financial distress and persistent demands from both farmers and bank officials, ultimately driving Khante to suicide.
Advocate Kanak Mandpe, representing the applicant, argued that the FIR lacked the necessary particulars to constitute an offence under Sections 45 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deal with abetment of suicide. He contended that there was no direct act of instigation by the applicant to warrant such allegations.
However, the court found the FIR detailed enough to suggest a prima facie case of abetment. The bench underscored that the methodology described in the FIR indicated a pattern of behavior by Madhav that had previously led to similar accusations. The court noted that similar FIRs for identical offences had been registered against the applicant, reinforcing the need for a thorough investigation.
The judgment makes reference to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, highlighting the principle that powers under Section 482 should not be used to prevent legitimate prosecution where the case merits a full trial. The court concluded that the allegations and counter-allegations necessitated an in-depth examination in trial, where evidence could be scrutinized through cross-examination.
Consequently, the bench rejected Madhav's application to quash the FIR, allowing the prosecution to proceed with its investigation and potential trial. This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance on handling cases involving serious allegations like abetment of suicide, ensuring that justice is pursued through appropriate legal channels.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of FIR not permissible when prima facie material shows the accused's direct involvement in abetment of suicide. Powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 45, 108; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Madhav v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821442
