"Far fetched": Bombay High Court quashes abetment of suicide case against Judicial Officer

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a judicial officer accused of abetting the suicide of a man involved in a property dispute with his brother [Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar v The State of Maharashtra & Anr]..The Court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to support charges under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code on abetment of suicide."The material in the charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the Applicant, are too far fetched and definitely fall short of any instigation/incitement," a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande ruled..The case arose after Bhupal Ramu Mali, a resident of Miraj in Maharashtra, was found dead on June 22, 2016, a day after he was reported missing by his son. Suicide notes found at the scene allegedly implicated judicial officer Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar and his brother, suggesting that their actions had contributed to Mali’s distress and subsequent suicide. The notes revealed that Mali was under significant emotional strain due to a property dispute with Jamadar's brother..The property dispute began when one Hirgude family sought a division of their land in Miraj. In 2010, Jamadar’s brother purchased an undivided share of this disputed property from the Hirgude family with the consent of the co-sharers. The sale deed, however, was exclusively in his name, and Jamadar had no direct involvement in the transaction. Tensions intensified in 2016 when a court issued possession orders for the property and Jamadar’s brother took physical possession of the land on April 26. Mali, however, claimed some right to the property despite the legal rulings in favor of Jamadar’s brother.Mali reportedly harassed the brothers, asserting that he was entitled to the land, which caused significant distress. Witness statements indicated that Mali expressed frustration over the property dispute, adding to the emotional turmoil..During the proceedings, Jamadar’s defense argued that he had no direct involvement in the property dispute or Mali's distress and was only implicated due to his familial connection to his brother. The prosecution, however, suggested that Jamadar's presence and alleged threats had a role in worsening Mali’s mental state, leading him to take his own life..The Court stressed that in order to establish a case of abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement on the part of the accused,"In order to attract the offence under Section 306, clear mens rea to commit the offence has to be established, as it requires active/direct act, leading the deceased to commit suicide left with no other option, but in the present case, the material in the charge-sheet falls short of proving the ingredients of Section 306," the Court noted. It pointed out that the allegations against Jamadar were based solely on a reference in the suicide note which did not show any active role in provoking Mali to take his life. Further, the Court observed that Jamadar had distanced himself from the family dispute and had been serving as a judge in Nagpur during the period in question. Hence, the Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of abetment of suicide. "For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied that human liberty, which is the most cherished constitutional value, must be protected by us, by exercising the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code," the court said while exercising its inherent powers to quash the FIR..Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni instructed by advocates AM Kulkarni and Manoj Badgujar appeared for the Judicial Officer.Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik appeared for the State..[Read Order]