RAMDAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All applicants herein have prayed for quashing FIR and charge-sheet arising out of Crime bearing No.0348 of 2021 registered at Belwandi Police Station, District Ahmednagar on 18/8/2021 for the offence punishable under Ss. 306, 420, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Brief facts leading to registration of crime : Informant, who is wife of deceased Gautam Bhanudas Adhav, has set law in motion alleging that, three and half acres land was standing in the name of her husband Gautam. Out of said land, Ramdas has purchased half acre land, however, she was unaware about it. When 7/12 extract was obtained, only one and half acre land was reflected in the name of her deceased husband. When she learnt about it, she questioned her deceased husband, who told her that by cheating him Ramdas had got sale deed executed to the extent of one and half acre land. According to informant, such transaction was behind back of the family. Therefore, a meeting was held in the village but Ramdas flatly denied to return the land and moreover, demanded Rs.21,00,000.00 that too in a period of month. In spite of repeated demand by the deceased to accused Ramdas to return the land, Ramdas and his family members abused him. Therefore, getting fed-up of the same, Gautam hanged himself to a tree on the intervening night of 17/8/2021 and 18/8/2021. That, deceased Gautam had written a suicide note before hanging himself and a chit to that extent was seized by Police machinery. Therein, present applicants are named and hence, crime was registered against Ramdas Popat Adhav, Dada Popat Adhav, Popat Sakharam Adhav and Jijabai Popat Adhav i.e. present applicants.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that FIR is apparently false, afterthought and filed with ulterior motive. He pointed out that present applicants are related to deceased. Deceased Gautam was in financial crisis and he also had bad vices and under such circumstances, he himself entered into sale transactions. Said transactions were duly registered. Learned Advocate invited our attention to both the sale deeds brought on record. According to him, there is no whisper about transactions to be out of money lending transaction. According to him, it was pure sale transaction and deceased was in dire need of money. Therefore, it is his submission that false allegations are levelled in the FIR of money being borrowed and land being kept mortgaged and that exorbitant interest was charged. Learned Advocate for the applicants also pointed out that in this case there is a suicide note. As to when the suicide note was written has not been specified. He also pointed out that it is very clearly written in the suicide note that because of quarrel in the house, deceased committed suicide and as such, applicants should not be held responsible for the suicidal hanging of Gautam. It is his further submission that even considering the FIR as it is, there is no whisper about any abetment or harassment, which was of such nature that deceased would end up his life. Therefore, according to him, offence under Sec. 306 is clearly misdirected against present applicants. It is his next submission that even if so-called sale transaction is concerned, it is much prior to alleged suicide and therefore, it is unreasonable to connect it with suicide. He pointed out that no details are given as to when alleged meeting was held in the village. Rather, according to the learned Advocate, deceased had bad vices and was heavily indebted and further because of the quarrel in the house, he might have committed suicide. Learned Advocate submits that there is no specific role attributed to any of the applicants as to in what manner they harassed deceased and abetted suicide. It is further submitted that applicant No.1, being immediate neighbour, the above said transaction was entered into and even informant and her family members were aware about it but no objection was raised by the deceased or informant or any family member at any point of time till lodgement of FIR. While concluding, he submitted that none of the ingredients for attracting offence under Sec. 306 or Sec. 420 are made out. That, there is no whisper of issuing any threat to kill and hence, as necessary ingredients for attracting none of the Ss. inducted in the charge-sheet are available, he prays for grant of relief as prayed.