RAKESH RAMNATH SAIGAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mother and son seek the quashing of proceedings initiated against them by the Chambur police Station attributing to them the commission of offences punishable Under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PETITIONER Rakesh is the soli of deceased Ramnath Saigal and Petitioner No. 3 Raj. Rakesh got married to deceased Madhu alias Prapti in the month of February 1986. From what Madhu's parents say it would appear that both of them were opposed to her marrying Rakesh. Rakesh had a child by a previous marriage, the child being a daughter named Kaniksha. Madhu was averse to rakesh even meeting Kaniksha, much less was she prepared to allow the father and daughter to live together. On 12. 9. 1986, Madhu while at the flat, which was the marital home of the couple, consumed a Pesticide known as 'baygon'. She was rushed by the neighbours to the Sion hospital. Despite attempts made to save her, Madhu died of poisoning. On a report made by madhu's father Keshavchandra Khosla, the Chembur Police registered an offence against Rakesh and his parents. The three were said to have treated Madhu cruelly, which cruelty amounted to the abetment of suicide by Madhu. It was this which led Madhu to consume poison. The chembur Police in the course of the investigation recorded further statements of Keshavchandra, k. Chandrasama Branch Manager of the Vijaya Bank, Dayaram Lalwani, Manager of the kukraja Construction Company, Smt. Sahani, Govind Ramchandra Batra, Sheela Khosla, mother of Madhu, and Dr. D. G. Sinkar. On the basis of three statements, the Chembur Police has lodged a charge-sheet in the Court of the 11th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla at Bombay. That charge-sheet is sought to be quashed by the present petition.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the petition Ramnath Saigal, father of Rakesh and husband of Raj, has expired. The limited point for determination is whether any case warranting the commitment of the Petitioners to the Court of Sessions or framing a charge against them for the commission of any offence triable by a Magistrate is made out ? I find in the negative for the reasons given below :