Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (August 4) reserved its decision on the challenge to the Bombay High Court order, which quashed criminal charges of abetment to suicide and extortion relating to the death of MP Mohanbhai Delkar in 2021.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the challenge made by the son of to the Bombay High Court order which 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. The petition was filed by Abhinav Mohan Delkar, the son of the deceased MP.

On September 8, 2022, the High Court bench of 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 the 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 the next elections. Further, as he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, he was purposely ill-treated in public functions.

During the hearing today, the CJI referred to the details mentioned in Delkar's suicide note and inquired whether the case would fall under the abatement of suicide. He said

"This person had the time to write 20-30 pages, to think about everything, so can it be said that it was done at the spur of a moment ?"

Here, the CJI was implying the application of the principle of 'close proximity' in proving an abetment to suicide, which means that the instigation or incitement must be closely connected in time and circumstance to the suicide.

Sr Advocate Meenakshi Arora, in her submission, stressed that the suicide letter left by Delker details the continuous harassment that he faced from the accused persons. The last point of instigation, as per Arora, was on February 19, 2021. She referred to various decisions where proximity between the suicide and instances of instigation varied and were subjective. She stressed that “Proximity in different cases will have a different meaning.”

Arora further submitted that in the suicide note, Delkar mentions a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons who plan to reopen old criminal cases and make Delkar an accused in those matters. She added that the accused persons were also trying to extort 25 crores from Delkar and usurp the college that he founded.

Arora also pointed out that the reason why he never filed a complaint with the Dadra Police was due to a lack of confidence in the local authorities, considering that the accused had influence over them.

When the CJI verbally remarked that Delkar could have taken an alternative approach and could have filed a complaint with the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he added, "And fortunately or unfortunately, Dadra & Nagar Haveli do not have a separate judiciary; it is the judges from Maharashtra who sit there."

Arora replied that Delkar did submit his complaint to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, as well as the Privileges Committee.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the law on the issue clearly required the Court's consideration of two tests (1) the proximity test and (2) that the level of instigation has to be seen from the lens of a practical person and not a highly sensitive person.

Sr Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Praful Patel, the then UT administrator, submitted that the issue of extortion was not raised before the High Court. He stressed that the suicide note does not mention anything about the alleged extortion of 25 crores.

He added that on the issue of takeover of the college, an arbitration proceeding is pending on the dispute between the college trustees and the administrator (Patel), and the dispute dates back to 2014.

Jethmalani also submitted that Delkar had written a letter to Patel on January 14, 2021, asking for help, just a month prior to the suicide incident. He said, "This was on record before the High Court, suppressed from this Court."

Arora sought permission to file a response to whether the High Court was informed of the said letter dated January 14, 202,1, by Friday through written submissions.

The Court reserved the matter for judgment.

Why Was The FIR Quashed By The High Court?

The High Court held that it was only the impression created 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 the 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 the 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 Details : ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA| Crl.A. No. 002177 - 002185 / 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order