SHESHRAO S/O MAHADU BABAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sheshrao S/O Mahadu Babar
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
Revati Mohite Dere, J. -
(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad in Regular Criminal Case No.428/2006, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process as against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.; as well as the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which the petitioners' Criminal Revision No.29/2008 was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed both the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court, on several grounds. He submitted that taking the complaint/case as it stands, no offence as alleged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is disclosed qua any of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the statement of Diwakar Palikondawar (complainant) in support of his submission to show, that infact, Kalidas (deceased) had committed suicide, as the police had refused to register his complaint against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions.
I) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 CrLJ 2796.
II) Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2016 AllMR(Cri) 4328.
III) S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., 2010 AllMR(Cri) 3298 (S.C.).
IV) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2010 AllMR(Cri) 3245 (S.C.).
V) State of Kerala & Others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair & Others, 2015 AIR(SC) 3351.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant, the petitioners instigated Kalidas to commit suicide, by their conduct and as such, abetted the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Kalidas. He submitted that no interference was warranted in the impugned order of issue process passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and confirmed by the revisional Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 relied on the following judgments.
I) Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2009 16 SCC 605.
II) State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar, 2000 10 SCC 337.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.