The Supreme Court Today (Aug 18) upheld the Bombay High Court’s order quashing the FIR in MP Mohan Delkar’s suicide case. Nine accused, including UT Administrator Praful Patel, stand cleared of abetment charges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash the suicide abetment case linked to the death of Member of Parliament (MP) Mohan Delkar.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, dismissed the plea filed by Abhinav Delkar, son of the late parliamentarian, seeking restoration of the FIR against nine accused persons, including Praful Patel, Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep.
Mohan Delkar, a seven-time MP from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, was found dead in a Mumbai hotel on February 22, 2021. A 14-page suicide note recovered from the room alleged harassment and political pressure by the Union Territory administration.
The FIR lodged at Marine Drive Police Station had invoked sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 389 (putting a person in fear of accusation of offence) of the Indian Penal Code. It claimed that Delkar was subjected to intimidation and harassment at the instance of Praful Patel and others.
During earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had observed that the evidence on record did not conclusively establish abetment of suicide. CJI Gavai had noted that humiliation or pressure alone may not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC.
The Bench also remarked that even if someone was told to “go and die,” it would not automatically attract the charge of abetment unless a direct link to the act of suicide was established.
With today’s ruling, the quashing of the FIR against all nine accused stands confirmed.
“A Sensitive Person May End Life, But Hard-Hearted One May Not”: CJI Gavai Reserves Verdict On 4th August
The Supreme Court on 4th August reserved its ruling on a plea challenging the order that dismissed the FIR against nine individuals, including Praful Khoda Patel, the Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu.
They were accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of former Lok Sabha MP Mohan Delkar in 2021.
The Bombay High Court had quashed the case against the nine individuals on September 8, 2022.
A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Abhinav Delkar, the son of the deceased MP, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the state government, and senior lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani on behalf of some accused.
During the proceedings, the bench engaged in an in-depth discussion regarding whether the evidence, including a 30-page suicide note from the late MP, could substantiate charges under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide).
The Chief Justice questioned,
“The person had time to think over and write 30 pages. Can we say it (the suicide) was at the spur of the moment?”
He noted that individual reactions to stress or harassment vary significantly.
The CJI added,
“Someone who is sensitive may commit suicide, while someone with a hard heart may not,”
Arora argued that Delkar’s mental state at the time of his death stemmed from a profound sense of public humiliation, emphasizing,
“He was distressed because he believed his public image had been destroyed. Look at what he has written to his wife and children…his family name mattered deeply to him.”
Mehta contended that the law remains constant despite evolving narratives, asserting that the high court’s decision to dismiss the FIR was justified based on the evidence. He referenced precedents, including one authored by CJI Gavai during his time at the Bombay High Court.
Mahesh Jethmalani, representing some of the accused, stated,
“There is no specific reference to the alleged extortion of Rs 24 crore either in the suicide note or elsewhere in the record. The claim does not stand scrutiny.”
The bench remarked that if the extortion allegations were not presented in the high court, they might not be permissible now.
The CJI inquired,
“Was this argument made before the high court?”
While reserving the verdict, the bench instructed the lawyers to submit their written arguments by August 8. On September 8, 2022, the high court ruled that it was appropriate to quash the FIR to “prevent abuse of law” against the accused.
It noted that the contents of the FIR and references to the incident were insufficient to demonstrate any “positive act” by the accused that would lead to Delkar’s suicide.
Supreme Court On July 31 Raises Doubts on Mohan Delkar Suicide FIR: “Can Humiliation Alone Prove Abetment?”
The Supreme Court of India on July 31 shared serious doubts about whether the evidence available in the Mohan Delkar suicide case is strong enough to support the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench hearing the case included Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
They were examining a petition filed by Abhinav Delkar, who is the son of Mohan Delkar, a former Member of Parliament. Abhinav has approached the apex court to challenge the decision of the Bombay High Court, which had earlier quashed the FIR filed against nine people, including Praful Patel, the Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep.
Mohan Delkar, who had served as MP seven times, had won his last election in 2019 from Dadra and Nagar Haveli as an independent candidate. On February 22, 2021, he was found dead in Hotel Sea Green South, located at Marine Drive in Mumbai.
A 14-page suicide note was recovered from the scene, in which Delkar allegedly mentioned that political pressure was the reason he decided to end his life.
According to the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Marine Drive Police Station, Delkar was under continuous stress and harassment for almost a year. The FIR alleged that this harassment came from officials in the Union Territory’s administration, acting under the instructions of Administrator Praful Patel.
As per the FIR, offences under Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence) of the IPC were registered.
However, the Bombay High Court later quashed the FIR after a petition was filed by the accused persons. This decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court by Delkar’s son.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who appeared for Abhinav Delkar, argued that the suicide note and several witness statements showed that Delkar was constantly insulted and humiliated.
“He says the Deputy Collector and the Administrator misbehaved with him. This is the humiliation,”
Arora told the court while pointing at the content of the suicide note.
At this point, CJI Gavai raised an important legal concern about what amounts to abetment under law.
“Can this humiliation be said to compel suicide? If a lawyer is told by a judge that the client has chosen a stupid lawyer, and the lawyer dies by suicide three days later, will the judge be liable under Section 306? In the Bombay High Court, I have quashed so many such cases,”
CJI remarked, drawing attention to how complex the abetment law is.
When Arora said Delkar felt disrespected because he was invited by a Tehsildar instead of a District Magistrate, the CJI again questioned:
“So if he is not invited by the DM, but by the Tehsildar, that is sufficient for abetment?”
Arora then explained that Delkar was a victim of continuous harassment, which was even mentioned in his suicide note. She said he had written to the Privileges Committee of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha about his troubles.
She also brought to the court’s notice a very serious statement allegedly made by the Administrator:
The Administrator had allegedly told Kaushal Patel he would “soon kill Delkar”.
CJI then asked a direct and pointed question:
“Where is the complaint against Praful Patel? This is not a complicated question. Please answer yes or no.”
The Supreme Court further observed:
“Even if someone is told to go and die, and if the person dies within 48 hours, Section 306 is not attracted.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the State of Maharashtra, commented on Delkar’s mental state:
The deceased seemed to be “a man of hypersensitivity”
He also mentioned that Delkar was hurt simply because he was not addressed as “honourable.”
Arora responded to this by saying that the State had taken a different stand before the Bombay High Court, but the Chief Justice noted that it is allowed for the State to change its position in court.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who represented Praful Patel, argued that no specific names were mentioned in the letter sent to the Privileges Committee of Parliament, contrary to the claims made by the petitioner.
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court decided to defer the matter to August 5 for further consideration.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan: “Vedas Will Always Protect Their Devotees”
CASE TITLE:
ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Crl.A. No. 2177-2185/2024
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Mohan Delkar Suicide
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
