[MP Mohan Delkar Suicide] Bombay High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator & 8 Others

The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed FIR against Dadra and Nagar Haveli Administrator Praful Khoda Patel, Collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, Police Superintendent Sharad Darade, and other authorities for allegedly abetting suicide of Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar, seven times Member of Parliament (MP) of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

"Considering all these aspects, we find merit in the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and in our opinion, these are the fit cases so as to exercise the powers of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC to prevent an abuse of process of law", the court stated.

Justices Prasanna B. Varale and Shrikant D. Kulkarni allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the accused persons seeking to quash the FIR registered against them.

Delkar was found dead inside a room in Hotel Sea Green South in city's Marine Drive on February 22, 2021.

His son Abhinav Delkar accused the petitioners of abetting the suicide in an FIR under Sections 306 (Abetment to suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence), 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act).

The FIR alleged that Delkar suffered ill-treatment, harassment and defamation under the orders of Praful Khoda Patel. The two-fold motive behind this was to take control over the college being run by Delkar and to prevent him from contesting next elections. Further, as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe, he was purposely ill-treated in public functions.

The petitioners, inter alia, submitted that there is no close proximity of the incidents quoted in the FIR and the act of committing suicide by Delkar. Petitioners further submitted that to attract Section 306 of IPC none of the three pre-requisites - intention, abetment and a positive act of abetment, have been fulfilled. The contents of the FIR also fall short to attract Sections 506, 389 read with Section 120(B) of IPC.

Special Public Prosecutor Rafiq Dada submitted that there is a common thread in all the incidents mentioned in the FIR leading to an act of humiliation and harassment of Delkar. As the investigation is in progress this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Advocate Ashok Mundargi, Senior Counsel for Abhinav Delkar submitted that though the FIR makes reference to different persons and their individual acts, these acts will have to be treated as a joint and systematic act to ill-treat and harass Delkar constantly so that he is depressed and takes an extreme step.

The court held that it was only the impression carried out by Delkar that he was ill-treated or humiliated. The court observed that there is no material to show that the Administrator or any other petitioner was trying to take control over the college run by Delkar. Further, Delkar contested election as an independent member and was elected.

"In such a situation, if both these alleged objects are not substantially established and it is only in the form of certain allegations and an impression of the deceased, then on such an unacceptable and unsustainable material asking the Petitioners to undergo the rigors of criminal prosecution, is nothing but an abuse of process of law", the court stated.

The court further observed that to attract Section 120 (B), there must be positive material to show that the Petitioners came together for hatching a conspiracy and effect was given to that conspiracy. However, in the FIR there are bare allegations without any incident to show that petitioners came together and acted under the orders of the Administrator.

The court relied on Apex Court judgment in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and held that there must a positive act for satisfying the word abetment. However, the incidents referred to in the FIR are insufficient to show any positive act committed by the Petitioners to satisfy the term abetment which is a pre-requisite of Section 306 of IPC.

The court concluded that the case falls under the guidelines given by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal. The court thus quashed the FIR registered against the nine accused.

Case no – Writ Petition Nos. 1806, 1538, 1653, 1809, 1808, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1807 of 2021

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom ) 320

Case Title – Sharad Darade v. State of Maharashtra with 8 connected matters

Coram – Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment