BHARAT DASWANI Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri G. Agni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State-respondent no.1.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri P. Faldessai, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State.

(3.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the charge-sheet filed before the Sessions Judge, Mapusa in the Sessions Case No.3/2014 on account of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents no.2 and 3 who do not wish to pursue the case any further. It was briefly his case that he was married to the deceased Geeta under the personal law applicable to them which was performed with much fanfare in the presence of a large number of family, friends and relatives. He had travelled to Goa for a family holiday on 28th Sept., 2012 along with his wife, since deceased, and the family members and were scheduled to return to Mumbai 5-6 days later after checking into a hotel at Arpora. On 10.2012 he was not in his room between 130 hours to 145 hours when his wife Geeta committed suicide by hanging herself in the hotel room. He had come to the hotel room and was shocked and shattered to see that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself and had informed the same to her family members who had thereupon lodged an FIR against him alleging that she had committed suicide by hanging on account of the alleged continuous demands for dowry, deprivation of physical relationship etc. The Anjuna Police Station had accordingly registered an FIR against him and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against him under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, and 304B read with Sec. 34 Penal Code along-with his other family members. The Sessions Court had discharged two of his family members by the order dated 18.8.2016 while his mother had expired during the pendency of the charge-sheet and he alone was facing the charges.