MOHIT KARAMJEETSINGH BEDI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in order to challenge F.I.R. dtd. 8/3/2022 registered with Nanded Gramin Police Station, Nanded, for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), vide Crime No.0134/2022 along with Charge-Sheet dtd. 9/12/2022 bearing Final Report No.423/2022 and Regular Criminal Case No.1168/2022 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, which is registered pursuant to the said F.I.R. and charge-sheet.

(2.) Respondent No.2 is the informant. He has lodged F.I.R. in relation to demise of his brother deceased Krushna Pralhadrao More (Hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The deceased has committed suicide in the night intervening 10/1/2022 and 11/1/2022 by hanging. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the deceased was a man aged 26 years, who was engaged in the business of running a grocery shop. The deceased and the present applicant/accused were friends. The applicant impressed upon deceased to invest a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 with him for starting business of finance, since as per representation of the applicant, he was holding a valid licence. Respondent No.2 states that the deceased was assured that he would get periodical returns in the form of profits earned from such business and relying on such promise, the deceased invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 for the proposed business to be started by the applicant. This amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 was arranged by the deceased from his B.C. group ( a term generally used for a group of people who contribute money in a fund at fixed periods and the collection taken by anyone or more members as decided by members) and by borrowing money from some relatives. It is alleged that the applicant did not start the business as represented to the deceased and despite repeated demands, he also did not refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 received from the deceased. On the contrary, he used to harass the deceased, whenever he used to ask him to refund the amount. As per allegations in the F.I.R., due to this, the deceased had landed in a very bad financial condition and was finding it impossible to meet expenses for basic day to day needs. According to respondent No.2, his survival was at stake.

(3.) It will be pertinent to note that although the deceased has committed suicide in the night intervening 10/1/2022 and 11/1/2022, the F.I.R. is lodged on 8/3/2022 i.e. after a period of around two months. Perusal of the F.I.R. does not indicate any reason for delay in lodging F.I.R. It may be mentioned that one Bhaskar Pralhadrao More, brother of the deceased had informed the police about the suicidal death of the deceased on 11/1/2022 at 10:28 a.m. (page No.136 of application). Perusal of the said written intimation indicates that the brother has informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging due to mental ailment. On the basis of this statement, Accidental Death Case was registered. The intimation dtd. 11/1/2022 is completely silent with respect to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased had arranged money for depositing the same with the applicant by borrowing the same from relatives. The prosecution has also recorded statement of maternal uncle of deceased, who has stated that he had advanced a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the deceased for investing the same in the proposed business of finance to be started by the applicant. This fact would indicate that the family members and near relatives were aware about the alleged deposit of Rs.5,00,000.00 by the deceased with the applicant. The statements in the F.I.R. go on to show that respondent No.2 and family members were aware of alleged investment of Rs.5,00,000.00 made by deceased with the applicant and the financial hardships that he faced thereafter on account of failure on the part of the applicant to start the business and share profits of the said business and also refusal to return the amount. However, the statement made first in point of time mentioning probable cause of suicide states that it was due to mental ailment. This statement is made by brother of the deceased. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. needs to be viewed in view of the aforesaid.