Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs The State Of Maharashtra

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of 2018)

Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke ……Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Another ..…. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

23.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at

Signature Not Verified Aurangabad dismissing Criminal Application No.4724 of 2017 preferred by Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2018.05.17 17:02:02 IST Reason: the appellant.

2

3. One Kishor Parashar serving in the office of the Deputy Director of

Education Aurangabad, committed suicide on 08.08.2017 in his house. His

wife made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from

mental torture as his higher officers were getting heavy work done from her

husband which required him to work from 10.00 am to 10.00 pm; that her

husband would be called at odd hours and even on holidays to get the work

done; that officer named Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke (the appellant) had

stopped his salary for one month and was threatening her husband that his

increment would be stopped; that one of the co-worker named Ghorpade

Madam used to get her work done from her husband; that because of the

pressure of work her husband used to remain silent and that these two

persons were responsible for the suicide committed by her husband.

Pursuant to the aforesaid reporting, FIR No.268 of 2017 dated 09.08.2017

was registered against the appellant and one Vidya Ghorpade under Sections

306, 506 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station MIDC, CIDCO,

Aurangabad.

4. The appellant as well as said Vidya Ghorpade filed Criminal

Application Nos.4724 of 2017 and 5174 of 2017 respectively under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. It was submitted that 3

the allegations in the FIR were absurd and inherently improbable and did not

make out any case against the applicants. Around this time, the applications

preferred by the applicants for anticipatory bail were accepted with certain

conditions. The applications preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were

thereafter taken up for hearing. The High Court accepted the plea made by

Vidya Ghorpade and quashed the proceedings against her. However,

Criminal Application No.4724 of 2017 preferred by the appellant was

dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 23.01.2018

which is presently under appeal. It was observed:

“The facts herein indicate that, there was no direct abetment and the applicants cannot have any intention that the deceased should commit suicide. Even when the accused persons have no such intention, if they create situation causing tremendous mental tension so as to drive the person to commit suicide, they can be said to be instigating the accused to commit suicide…..”

5. In this appeal, we heard Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned Advocate for

the appellant and Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the State.

6. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another1 the

deceased was a driver who had undergone a bypass surgery and was advised

against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer

1 (2010) 8 SCC 628 4

who had rebuked the deceased harshly and threatened to suspend him when

the deceased had failed to comply with his directions. The deceased

thereafter committed suicide and left behind a suicide note stating that the

accused was solely responsible for his death. In these facts, this Court held

that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either

instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged with

some other person in conspiracy to do so or that the accused had in some

way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. The prayer

for quashing preferred by the accused was accepted by this Court and the

proceedings were quashed.

7. At the same time the facts in Praveen Pradhan v. State of

Uttaranchal and another2 show that a junior officer was allegedly

compelled by the superior to indulge in several wrongful practices at the

work place; the junior officer was not comfortable in complying with such

orders, as a result of which the junior officer was harassed and insulted on

regular intervals and disgraced in front of the staff of the entire factory and

rebuked with comments such as “had there been any other person in his

place he would have died by hanging himself.” The junior officer

committed suicide leaving behind a note detailing all the incidents and 2 (2012) 9 SCC 734 5

asserting against his superior. In these circumstances prayer for quashing

was rejected by this Court.

8. In the backdrop of these two lines of cases, we have gone through the

material on record. There is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and

the only material on record is in the form of assertions made by his wife in

her reporting to the police. It is true that if a situation is created deliberately

so as to drive a person to commit suicide, there would be room for attracting

Section 306 IPC. However, the facts on record in the present case are

completely inadequate and insufficient. As a superior officer, if some work

was assigned by the applicant to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot

be said that there was any guilty mind or criminal intent. The exigencies of

work and the situation may call for certain action on part of a superior

including stopping of salary of a junior officer for a month. That action

simplicitor cannot be considered to be a pointer against such superior officer.

The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the

requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present

case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and

there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We 6

are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings

initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed.

9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash criminal case lodged in

pursuance of FIR No.268 of 2017 registered with Police Station MIDC,

CIDCO, Aurangabad.

…………………..……J. (Arun Mishra)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, May 17, 2018