Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Daughter Making Monetary Demand From Father Not Meant To Abet His Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

Amisha Shrivastava
27 Sep 2022 3:09 PM GMT
Daughter Making Monetary Demand From Father Not Meant To Abet His Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR
x

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of abetting her father's suicide, observing that it is unlikely that she demanded money from him with the purpose of driving him to commit suicide."We are of the opinion that such repeated demands or alleged increase in the demands cannot lead to a finding that prima facie the demands were being...

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman accused of abetting her father's suicide, observing that it is unlikely that she demanded money from him with the purpose of driving him to commit suicide.

"We are of the opinion that such repeated demands or alleged increase in the demands cannot lead to a finding that prima facie the demands were being made with the intention of driving the father to commit suicide", the court held.

Justice Manish Pitale and Justice G. A. Sanap allowed a writ petition for quashing of FIR and observed that it would be 'stretching things a bit far' to conclude that the accused, through her mother, intentionally drove her father to commit suicide.

The petitioner, along with her mother was an accused in the abetment of her father's suicide. The FIR against her was based almost entirely on two identical suicide notes found on the deceased. The deceased stated that he was fed up with his life and had to take the extreme step because of the petitioner and her mother. The petitioner approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR and charge sheets filed against her.

Advocate A. M Sudama for the petitioner submitted that even if contents of suicide note are accepted, the essential element of abetment under section 107 of the IPC was absent. At worst, the demands the petitioner's mother made at the instigation of the petitioner are demands that they thought were genuine. It cannot be said that the demands were made with intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there was no proximity between the suicide note and the actual act.

APP S. M. Ghodeswar for the State submitted that the suicide note clearly demonstrates that no option was left for the deceased because of the aggressive behaviour of the co-accused mother of the petitioner due to instigation of the petitioner.

The court noted that the suicide note was dated 9 September 2021 while the actual act of suicide was 14 September 2021.

The court perused the suicide note and said that it brings out the anguish of the deceased from the alleged harassment by the petitioner and her mother. However, it also shows that the co-accused was the second wife of the deceased. She was making monetary demands or asking for a share and agricultural land from the deceased at the behest of the petitioner.

The court relied on the judgment in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan in which the Supreme Court held that the surrounding circumstances which may affect the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased have to be considered to determine the question of abetment of suicide.

The court said that at worst, the repeated demands were unreasonable and something that the deceased could not fulfill.

The court also noted that the deceased had two wives and children with both wives. Driving him to commit suicide would not have let to any exclusive gain to the petitioner.

As the suicide note is dated September 9 while the actual suicide happened five days later, there is no proximate link between the suicide note alleging harassment at the behest of the petitioner and the extreme step taken by the deceased on September 14, the court further observed.

The court quashed the FIR and the charge sheets against the petitioner.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 866 f 2021

Case title – Lata v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Next Story