Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is practically a G.D.entry for no cognizable offence to register any crime under IPC or other penal law and registration as if a crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is practically not meant for, from the very section speaks to police enquire and report on suicide and it is to say it is of making a G.D.entry if there is any cognizable offence from the enquiry from investigation revealed, then a regular crime is supposed to be registered. Needless to say this Court way back in a judgment reported in Kilaparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State of A.P., re. By Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another and in another expression of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2002(6) Alt 626 (DB) observed that registering any crime under Section 102 Cr.P.C. of finding any unclaimed property does not arise for no cognizable offence or any other law and similarly so far as Section 174 Cr.P.C. also as Section 2(4) Cr.P.C. defines the offence as an act or omission made punishable by any law in force. It is from the said registering, it was called crime even for no cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence to set the law in motion by mentioning simply under Section 174 Cr.P.C. lead to some confusion.

6. It is important to note that there was already an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the parents-in-law of the deceased (bail cancellation petition respondents 1 and 2 herein) referring to the said crime No.149 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In fact as stated supra, there is no any offence much less cognizable offence by the time the so called application for anticipatory bail moved by them, as alteration memo was filed only on 10.05.2014 and the said anticipatory bail application appears to have filed prior to that itself. The averments mentioned there in for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.1052 of 2014, although that was disposed of by dismissal on 12.05.2014 by order of the learned in charge Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, speaks besides the report of the house owner/defacto complainant supra, from facts they came to know that their son-in-law committed suicide on 23.04.2014 while residing in a rented house of the defacto complainant for which police registered the above crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and police are making hectic efforts to apprehend them though they are nothing to do with the above crime and if they arrest them without any reason basing on the FIR, they will suffer being in highly placed position of the society, having nothing to do with the crime. The same was dismissed saying, if the petitioners/accused are enlarged on bail they may cause inconvenience to the investigation, which is pending in preliminary stage and thereby not entitled to the anticipatory bail.

7. There is no little whisper in that anticipatory bail application of their going to be involved in any non-bailable offence without which the very anticipatory bail application itself is not maintainable that was in fact neither drawn attention of the Court by the learned Public Prosecutor much less as part of the duty of learned counsel for petitioners who ought not to have been filed without any basis but the very not drawn attention by the Court, no doubt, instead of saying not maintainable, went into the merits and dismissed, though there are no merits for accusation at all. Be the things as it may, having been unsuccessful therein, the parents-in-law of the deceased again moved this Court (another bench) during vacation for anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.5683 of 2014, which speaks that the police registered the crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and taken up investigation, conducted inquest and handed over the body to the father of the deceased. Neither the father of the deceased nor any relatives informed the petitioners or their daughter about the suicide committed by the deceased, while the wife of the deceased was staying with them at Mumbai and that the police are making hectic efforts to apprehend them on the ground that they and their daughter are responsible for the cause of committing suicide by the deceased and the 1st petitioner (father-in-law of deceased) is working as Scientific Officer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and 2nd petitioner is also residing with him at Mumbai and they never visited after the marriage of their daughter with the deceased to the house of their son-in-law but for contacts over phone and they are apprehending their arrest by police and police even failed to implicate them by alteration of section of law as if making them responsible for the cause of suicide. The alteration memo filed by police on 10.05.2014 whereas the anticipatory bail application filed in the vacation Court is about more than a week after the said dismissal of the anticipatory bail application they moved before the learned Sessions Judge referred supra.

12. From the above expressions, the Court cannot presume unless there is some basis to presume and there are facts in support of drawing the presumption even under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further to mention in this context that there are two bail applications for anticipatory bail moved by wife and wifes brother of the deceased in Crl.P.No.1451 and 1452 of 2014 in the above crime before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the same were grated by order dt.21.06.2014. It is in fact they mentioned in their bail application that is referred in the common order para 3 that police later on altered the crime from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and addressed a memo to the committal court from which the police stated found suicide note left by deceased in the place of death which revealed that petitioners herein and their family members harassed the deceased as such the deceased committed suicide. The parents-in-law of the deceased obtained anticipatory bail from this Court(another bench) in Crl.P.No.5683 of 2014 wherein it is observed that the crime registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. it is a case wherein son-in-law of the defacto complainant is alleged to have committed suicide and petitioners are residents of Mumbai and there are no allegations linking them to the suicide. However, the investigation is yet to be completed and considering the facts, inclined to grant anticipatory bail on certain conditions. This Court(another bench) also did not advert to the factum of there is no any cognisable offence but for a stray sentence in the bail application, particularly at para 8. Facts referred supra in this regard shows any cause of registration of crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by the police without even after alteration by making any accusation against them, the police are trying to arrest them as if they are responsible for the suicide of the deceased. That factum is also not reflected in the order of this Court (vacation Court), as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the father of the deceased in seeking for cancellation of the bail. In fact had the learned Public Prosecutor either before the Sessions Court in disposal of the anticipatory bail on 12.05.2014 as the crime already altered into a cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners on 10.05.2014 or atleast before this Court (another bench) while considering for grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail supra, order could be otherwise or not, it could have been reflected atleast in the subsequent common order for the wife and brother-in-law of the deceased covered by Crl.P.No.1451 and 1452 of 2014 dt.21.06.2014 of the learned sessions judge. As the parents in law of the deceased were already granted anticipatory bail by the vacation Judge of this Court observing the position of the petitioners is similarly situated, subject to execution of self bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned by surrender.