Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21331 of 2010
Anju Raikwar and others
v.
State of U.P and others
Hon Imtiyaz Murtaza, J
Hon Ram Autar Singh, J
“Present petition has been preferred for the relief of quashing the First Information Report dated 12.11.2010 registered at case crime No. 572 of 2010 under sections 306, 504, 120 B I.P.C PS Prem Nagar District Jhansi attended with the relief of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
The first information report it would appear, was lodged by the respondent no. 4 namely, Savitri Devi, who happens to be the mother of the deceased Laxman Ahirwar alleging that her son had tied nuptial knots with one Smt Anita on 1.2.2010 and that after sometime of marriage, there was discord between the husband and wife and as a result, Smt Anita left for her parental home in a huff. Thereafter, the deceased endeavoured hard to win her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to relent. In the meantime, it is alleged, the petitioners contacted the deceased and insisted with him to take aid of the Reality show known as "Rakhi Ka Insaf" being exhibited on NDTV Imagine conveying at the same time that it would resolve discord between him and his estranged wife. It is further alleged that the deceased fell prey to the persistent persuasions of the petitioners and he agreed to participate in the Reality show and consequently, he completed all the formalities before participating in the programme. It is further alleged that on 13.9.2010, the deceased alongwith other family members left for Mumbai and when they arrived at Film Studio situated in Goregaon at Mumbai, Smt Aneeta and her family members were already present there. While the programme was being recorded, Rakhi Sawant Anchor of the programme, it is alleged, used the offensive language against the deceased and at one stage, called him impotent (NAMARD) without any valid proof besides insulting him in public. The aforesaid Anchor also maligned in public Balbir brother of the first informant of his being involved in illicit relationship while using extremely derogatory language against other family members present in the entire programme. When the family members present there remonstrated with the Anchor asking her to desist from using offensive and highly derogatory and abusive language, her bodyguards jumped in the fray and they also hurled unbecoming and offensive language and manhandled the deceased and family members present in the programme. The aforesaid programme was telecast on TV on 23.10.2010 which was viewed by the entire public of the country. It is further alleged that her son became distraught and distressed on account of his portrayal in unpleasant light in the show and as a result, he was unnerved and slided into trauma and began to dread his own shadow and his condition took a turn for the worse so much so that he hardly slept during night and had developed aversion to the food and whenever he was tried to be mollified, he cried saying that Rakhi Sawant had made his life hell and his life is worse than a death and that he has no desire to live any further in this world and solicited to let him die in peace. He was taken to medical college Jhansi for treatment where he was diagnosed as being tension stricken. It is further alleged that his son was living a normal life before participating in the programme and during the programme he was hurt by the offensive and derogatory words used by Rakhi Sawant and as a result, her son pined away to death.
To begin with, Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners canvassed that ingredients of section 306 IPC are not at all disclosed from a punctilious reading of the FIR and in connection with this submission, he drew attention to the agreement (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) that the deceased and his family members had agreed to participate in the programme attended with further submission that before recording of the programme began, they had agreed and they had entered into agreement and even after the programme had been recorded, the participants were again enquired about objection, if any in respect of contents of the programme but even at that stage, there was no objection from any one of them and they even signed personal release letters and evinced their satisfaction which are being annexed to the petitions as Annexures 4,5 and 6. The learned counsel emphatically denied the allegations that after the programme had been recorded on 16th Sept 2010, the participants had not received any communication. It is also stated that promos were aired from Ist Oct 2010 on the TV channel showing clips of the episode and even then there was no objection, protestation or query from any quarter. It is further alleged that Laxman died on 10.11.2010 as a natural death and further that no post mortem is shown to have been conducted to prove the facts otherwise. The learned counsel also denied that there was any vestige of instigation so as to lead the deceased to commit suicide. In so far as petitioners are concerned, it is argued that they are reporters based in Jhansi and Lucknow whose only job is to interact between the local residents and the Production House at Mumbai. He termed the allegations as false, frivolous, absurd and inherently improbable besides being concocted. He also referred to clarification issued by M.L.B Medical College and Hospital Jhansi in which it was denied that it was a case of suicide and they attributed the cause of death as natural death. The learned counsel also drew attention to the fact that the deceased died a natural death on 10th Nov 2010 while the FIR has been lodged on 12th Nov 2010 after much deliberation attended with the submission that there was not a scintilla of allegation in the FIR that the deceased committed suicide. It is further argued that the FIR is belated being lodged on 12.11.2010 after much deliberations.
Before proceeding further it would be but appropriate to sum up the facts bearing on the case in order to make our own assessment whether it is a fit case for abetment of suicide, and whether there is any element of suicide. It is worth noticing here that the programme "Rakhi Ka Insaf" was recorded on 16th Sept in which the deceased, maternal uncle of deceased Balbir, maternal Aunt of deceased Puja and two of his neighbours in which his estranged wife Anita and her parents had also been invited and were present. The episode was shot in the Goregaon Film Studio at Mumbai. It would appear that before and also after the episode had been recorded, the participants signed the requisite documents agreeing to its contents and terms and had also voiced their satisfaction and at no stage, they demurred to any of the queries and shots of the programme which are annexed as Annexures 2,3,4,5, and 6. It would also appear that promos were aired on TV from Ist of Oct 2010 in which clips of episode were aired which was to be telecast on 23.10.2010 on NDTV Imagine. Even then, there was no vestige of objection from any quarter upto the date when the programme was telecast on TV. The deceased is stated to have breathed his last on 10.11.2010 while the FIR was lodged on 12.11.2010 at the police station by the mother of the deceased. There is reference of clarification of MLN Medical College Jhansi in which it was denied that it was a case of suicide further explaining that the deceased died his natural death.
By this reckoning, it is pellucid that there was no objection to the programme being aired and there was no complaint upto the date prior to lodging of the FIR.
[…………Extracts of Ss. 306/307 and case laws on quashing of FIR ………
……………………]
In the instant case, there was no suicide note left behind by the deceased nor is there anything on record to show that the deceased committed suicide. The case registered against the petitioners is without any factual foundation. The contents of the F.I R do not in any way make out the offence against the petitioner. In our considered opinion, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners would only result in sheer harassment to the petitioner without any fruitful result. In our opinion there is absolutely no ground to proceed against the petitioners herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked.
In the facts and circumstances, it is directed that notice be issued to respondent no 4 who may file counter affidavit within 4 weeks. Learned AGA may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. Rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within two weeks next thereafter. List this matter immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
In the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners who are wanted for offences as indicated above, shall remain stayed. “
