HC quashes FIR against nine persons named in MP Mohan Delkar’s suicide

Delkar, a seven-term MP from the Union territory was found dead in a hotel at Marine Drive on February 22 last year

Mumbai: The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against nine persons for the death by suicide of Member of Parliament from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Mohan Delkar in February 2021.

Mohan Delkar (HT Photo)

Delkar, a seven-term MP from the Union territory was found dead in a hotel at Marine Drive on February 22 last year. A 15-page suicide note written on his official letterhead was recovered from his room. His son, Abhinav, filed a complaint against nine persons – including the collector, administrator and deputy collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli – accusing them of pressurising his father on matters pertaining to a pharmaceutical college of which he was a trustee, and of trying to prevent Delkar from contesting the 2024 general election.

A division bench of justices Prasanna Varale and Shrikant Kulkarni on Thursday held that it was fit to quash the FIR based on the accused’s pleas that the they were falsely implicated in Delkar’s death.

The nine men named in the FIR included the administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Praful Khoda Patel, its collector Sandeep Kumar Singh, deputy collector Apurva Sharma and Law secretary Rohan Yadav, as well as three police officials including Superintendent of Police Sharad Darade. Dilip Patel, the talathi and a resident named Fatehsinh Chauhan, who was purportedly a close aide of the administrator, were also named.

The bench noted that the allegations that the administrator was trying to take over an educational institution in which Delkar was a trustee, and that he was trying to stop Delkar from contesting the elections were not substantially established.

“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 grounds for the petitioners to undergo the rigours of criminal prosecution, is nothing but an abuse of process of law.”

Delkar’s death raised a political maelstrom in the state with the then home minister Anil Deshmukh ordering a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe. The Congress party, which was part of the ruling coalition in power, demanded a probe into the alleged role of the Bharatiya Janata Party in his death, a request the BJP called ‘absurd’. Even Uddhav Thackeray, the then CM, remarked on how the opposition (BJP) was silent over Delkar’s death. In the Lok Sabha, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Supriya Sule demanded a probe by the committee on privileges of the parliament into the allegations made by Delkar in his last speech in September 2020, regarding impediments that MPs faced in discharging duties. Several political parties, including the Congress, Shiv Sena, Samajwadi Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Trinamool Congress (TMC) signed a memorandum seeking such a probe and submitted it to the speaker, Om Birla.

Abhinav Delkar’s contention was that the accused acted at the administrator, Praful Khoda Patel’s behest, and came together to hatch a conspiracy against his father, which led him to die by suicide. Based on this, the Mumbai police booked Patel under section 120(B) (hatching a conspiracy) and section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Atrocities act.

Advocates for the accused, however, held that none of these sections applied to their clients. They submitted that the suicide note recovered by the police was not shown to them and hence the mere presumption of their role in the suicide was not valid.

However, senior advocate Rafique Dada and chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai for the state argued that various incidents indicated that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy to harass and humiliate the deceased. Dada referred to a February 11, 2021 committee hearing, in which Patel presided, where Delkar was humiliated. This, Dada said, was also confirmed by witnesses.

The case fell short of attracting the provisions applied in the FIR, the bench held.

“In the present case except bare words that the Petitioners were acting under the directions of Administrator there is not a single incident to show that these Petitioners came together and acted under the dictates of the Administrator,” the bench held, and added that the same applied to the Atrocities Act.

“There must be material of a positive act, as a pre-requisite for satisfying the word abetment, the contents of FIR and reference made to incidents falls too short to show any positive act committed by the petitioners,” the bench noted in its order.