High Court
Legal Reasoning
cria-943.24+11thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused toinstigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot besustained. In order to convict a person under Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to committhe offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which ledthe deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this actmust have been intended to push the deceased into such aposition that he/she committed suicide. It has been furtherobserved that when there is no proximate link between thesuicide and the event when deceased was tortured on somepretext or other, then it does not amount to abetment. 9.Having considered this legal position, we will now turn tothe factual aspects involved in the matter in order to consider, asto whether the contents of the charge-sheet would disclose theprima facie case for attracting the offence under Section 306 ofthe Indian Penal Code. Even before going to consider the factsfor offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, wewould like to make some observations in respect of Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code that has been invoked. In fact from theentire charge-sheet it is not coming on record as to when and inwhat manner the amount/amounts were given to the petitioner cria-943.24+12Annasaheb and applicant Sachin. It could not have beensimultaneously given. When the transactions with them, asalleged, are separate and even if for the sake of arguments it isaccepted for a moment that there were certain acts which wouldamount to harassment to deceased Siddheshwar, yet thoseshould be separate. There is no question of common intentioninvolved. For proving an offence under Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, there has to be a prior meeting of minds and theentire evidence that has been collected in the charge-sheet doesnot reflect such prior meeting of the minds between these twopersons. Merely because the amount was due as alleged, fromapplicant Sachin and petitioner Annasaheb, separately,Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked.10.In the FIR, the widow has stated that there was friendshipbetween deceased Siddheshwar, petitioner Annasaheb andapplicant Sachin since last about 5 to 7 years and there werefinancial transactions between them. There is specific statementthat her husband Siddheshwar used to take amount from thecustomers of his jewellery shop and friends and then he used togive it to petitioner Annasaheb and applicant Sachin. By thisstatement, whether she wanted to indicate that Siddheshwar cria-943.24+13was doing money lending business. If it is so, then she has notexplained as to whether Siddheshwar was having money lendinglicense. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that hehas no evidence about giving the amounts to these two persons,the suicide note is totally silent as to when the amounts weregiven, whether it was at one time or it was periodical andwhether then Siddheshwar had maintained any diary for thatpurpose and what was the mode of transaction i.e. whether itwas by cash or any other mode. The suicide note also refers inthe form of direction to the informant that she should take noteof the bank record of Siddheshwar and she would be able to getthe same. Now, the bank statements have been collected by theinvestigating officer, however, there are no such entries tosupport the statement in the suicide note. Another fact to benoted is that deceased Siddheshwar has accepted that he nevertold about the transactions to his wife. Then the question arises,as to how there are statements in the FIR regarding thefriendship between these three persons and the financialtransactions. If those statements were on the basis of suicidenote, then it can be said that she got the knowledge of the sameonly after reading of the suicide note on 10th November 2023and not prior to that. cria-943.24+1411.The statements of the witnesses recorded are of twocategories i.e. one category is of relatives and others are thosepersons from whom the deceased has taken the amounts.Statements of the relatives i.e. Balaji Potdar – brother of theinformant, Mohanrao Potdar – father of the informant, SwatibaiMohanrao Potdar – mother of the informant, Shubham MohanraoPotdar – another brother of the informant, are in fact copy-pastestatements. They all have stated that there was friendshipbetween the deceased and petitioner Annasaheb and applicantSachin, about 5 to 7 years prior to the incident and they werehaving financial transactions with each other. Then rest is, as tohow they had searched deceased Siddheshwar on the day ofincident and then how the informant recovered the suicide noteon 10th November 2023. It can be stated that they had nopersonal knowledge about the financial transactions. KisanraoSantanshe – father-in-law of the informant, Giridhari Santanshe,brother-in-law of the informant, are the relatives of deceasedSiddheshwar and their statements are on the same line, whereaswitness Shaikh Firoj Anwar, Pathan Sameer are the persons whohad helped the informant in the search of Siddheshwar on theday of incident. Statement of Ankush Birajdar, who is police cria-943.24+15constable, would show that he is the childhood friend ofSiddheshwar and he has given amounts to Siddheshwar fromtime to time. Even Siddheshwar has executed the receipts in hisfavour. He has produced all the documentary evidence which heis having, regarding advancement of the amounts toSiddheshwar. Similar are the statements of Jayaraj Nagthane,Satish Sangewad, Vishal Munde (police constable), VanmalaShinde etc., which would show that all of them had either givencash or had given gold jewellery to Siddheshwar and in spite ofpromises given by Siddheshwar to them, they have not receivedthe amount. At the most, we may take that from all thesepersons Siddheshwar had taken the amount but there is noevidence to show that he had given that amount to petitionerAnnasaheb and applicant Sachin. Siddheshwar was not a layman. He used to run a jewellery shop and therefore, presumedto have knowledge about, how the transactions are required tobe entered into. If he was doing some illegal business, then hecould not have insisted for the refund of the amount orrepayment of the same.12.As we have considered the legal position, in order to proveoffence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. cria-943.24+16abetment, the active role of the accused will have to be shown.Here use of the word ‘harassment’ (ijs’kku) will not be sufficient.In what manner that harassment was caused, whether there wasany proximity between the acts alleged to have been done andthe suicide, should have been shown even prima facie andtherefore, with this kind of evidence, it would be an abuse ofprocess of law if the applicant Sachin and petitioner Annasahebare asked to face the trial. This is a fit case where we shouldexercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Writ Petition No.1444 of 2024 standsdismissed.(II)Criminal Application No.943 of 2024 andCriminal Writ Petition No.154 of 2024 standallowed.(III)The proceeding in R.C.C. No.1519 of 2024,pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Latur, for the offence punishable under cria-943.24+17Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, arising out of the First InformationReport vide Crime No. 160 of 2023, registeredwith Gatgegaon Police Station, Latur, Taluka andDistrict-Latur, on 11th November 2023, standsquashed and set aside as against applicant -Sachin S/o Sharad Kalyani in Criminal ApplicationNo.943 of 2024 and petitioner - Dr. Annasaheb S/oGulabrao Birajdar in Criminal Writ Petition No.154of 2024. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/AUG25
Arguments
cria-943.24+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.943 OF 2024Sachin S/o Sharad Kalyani,Age-43 years, Occu:Business,R/o-Sadbhavna Nagar, Ausa Road,Latur, District-Latur. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Gategaon Police Station (City), Taluka and District-Latur,2) Smt. Pornima Siddheshwar Santanashe, Age-33 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Sadhbhavna Nagar, Ausa Road, Latur, District-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Satyajeet S. Bora Advocate h/f. Mr. Kalyan V. Patil Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. E.S. Murge Advocate h/f. Mr. C.J. Sabnis Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. … WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.154 OF 2024Dr. Annasaheb S/o Gulabrao Birajdar,Age-41 years, Occu:Doctor,R/o-Adarsh Colony, Latur,Taluka and District-Latur. ...PETITIONER cria-943.24+2 VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigating Officer, Gategaon Police Station, Latur, Taluka and District-Latur,2) Poornima W/o Siddheshwar Santanshe, Age-33 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Sadhbhavna Nagar, Ausa Road, Latur, Taluka and District-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Suraj V. Gundre Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. E.S. Murge Advocate h/f. Mr. C.J. Sabnis Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. … WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1444 OF 2024Pornima W/o Late Shidheshwar Santanshe,Age-32 years, Occu:Housewife,R/o-Sadhbhawana Nagar, Latur,Taluka and District-Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Central Government of India, Department of Home Ministry, Through Central Agency Section or Solicitor General or Additional Solicitor General in High Court of Judicature at Bombay.2) Central Bureau of Investigation CGO Complex, Near Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi,3) The State of Maharashtra, Through, Home Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, cria-943.24+34) Director General of Police, State Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai,5) Superintendent of Police, Latur, District-Latur,6) The Investigation Officer, Gategaon (Dnyandev Pralhad Sanap), Police Station, Latur, District-Latur,7) Police Inspector from Shivajinagar, Police Station, Latur, District-Latur,8) Dr. Annasaheb Gulabrao Birajdar, (Accused No. 1, in present Crime No.160/2023), Age-41 years, Occu: Doctor, R/o-Adarsh Colony, Latur, Taluka and District-Latur,9) Sachin Sharad Kalyani, (Accused No.2 in Crime No.160/2023), Age-43 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Sadbhawna Nagar, Ausa Road, Latur, District-Latur,10) Rahul Nalwade, Age-42 years, R/o-Peth – Chandeshwar, Latur – Nilanga Road, Taluka and District-Latur,11) Jayraj Rangrao Nagthane, Age-45 years, Occu:Engineer National Highway, R/o-Sadbhawna Nagar, Ausa Road, Latur, District-Latur,12) Ankush Nilkanth Birajdar, Age-43 years, Occu:Police Constable, R/o-Near to R.T.O. Office, Latur, District-Latur, cria-943.24+413) Komal Jayraj Naghane, Age-36 years, R/o-Sadhbhawana Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District-Latur,14) Sonali Rangrao Nagthane, (Sonali Pravin Mahajan), Age-35 years, Occu:Government Service, R/o-Government Hospital, Latur, District-Latur,15) Varsha Chandrakant Bellale, (Varsha Sanjaykumar Shete), Age-38 yeas, Occu:Government service (since retired), R/o-Latur, District-Latur,16) Raju Chanbasppa Mahajan, Age-Major, Occu:Not Known, R/o-C/o-Sonali Rangrao Nagthane, (Sonali Pravin Mahajan), Age-35 years, Occu:Government Service, R/o-Government Hospital, Latur, District-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. E.S. Murge Advocate h/f. Mr. C.J. Sabnis Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.6. … CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Criminal Writ Petition No.1444 of 2024 is filed by the cria-943.24+5informant for directing re-investigation in the crime and othervarious prayers. It appears that the Petition was filed in July2024 and the charge-sheet came to be filed on 25th September2024. Thereafter no amendment has been sought on behalf ofthe petitioner. When the charge-sheet is filed, then the petitioner- informant could have knocked the doors of the learnedMagistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code of CriminalProcedure. The petitioner may say that since the present Petitionhas been filed, she has not approached the learned Magistrate.Another fact which is to be noted is that respondent No.2 inCriminal Application No.943 of 2024 and Criminal Writ PetitionNo.154 of 2024 was served and she appeared through Advocate.When the matters were taken up on 2nd July 2025, the learnedAdvocate for respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.943 of2024, Criminal Writ Petition No.154 of 2024 and the petitioner inCriminal Writ Petition No.1444 of 2024 was absent. It was takennote of the fact that he is not the Advocate who regularlypractices before this Court and therefore, this Court directed theissuance of notice to respondent No.2. Again the same Advocateappeared on 24th July 2025 and made submissions that evenafter the notice, he has instructions from respondent No.2 tocontinue his Vakalatnama. He assured this Court that he will cria-943.24+6remain present on the given dates. However, today learnedAdvocate Mr. Murge holding for learned Advocate Mr. Sabnis Patiltried to seek accommodation on the ground that Mr. Sabnis Patilhas gone before the another Court i.e. at Nagpur. Mr. Sabnis PatilAdvocate could have appeared through Video Conferencing inthe matter and could have made his submissions. Further, whenhe had given assurance of remaining present on the given dates,he cannot seek adjournment on some such ground that he wouldbe busy before the another Court.2.Under such circumstance, we dismiss Criminal Writ PetitionNo.1444 of 2024.3.Criminal Application No.943 of 2024 and Criminal WritPetition No.154 of 2024, are filed by the original accused,initially for quashment of the First Information Report (for short“the FIR”) vide Crime No. 160 of 2023, registered withGatgegaon Police Station, Latur, Taluka and District-Latur, on 11thNovember 2023, and later on, by way of amendment, forquashment of the proceedings in R.C.C. No.1519 of 2024,pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, cria-943.24+7for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code.4.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bora holding for Mr. KalyanPatil for applicant in Criminal Application No.943 of 2024,learned Advocate Mr. Gundre for the petitioner in Criminal WritPetition No.154 of 2024 and learned APP Mr. Dayama for theState. 5.Learned Advocates for the applicant/petitioner have takenus through the entire charge-sheet and submitted that even ifwe take the contents of the FIR as it is as well as the contents ofthe suicide note and the entire charge-sheet, the ingredients ofSection 306 of the Indian Penal Code will not get attracted. TheFIR has been lodged by the widow of the deceased. DeceasedSiddheshwar Santanshe was running a jewellery shop by name,Vishwa Jewellers, and it is stated that the applicant/petitionerhad friendship with deceased since last about 5 to 7 years. Therewere financial transactions between them. According to theinformant, her husband has committed suicide on 7th November2023. Around 6.00 to 7.00 p.m., on 7th November 2023, wheninformant had tried to contact husband, he had not picked up cria-943.24+8the phone. She had searched husband at various places andthen along with her brother and others, they went near theagricultural land owned by the deceased in Akharwai Shiwar.They found that Siddheshwar has hanged himself to Mango tree.According to the informant, she had taken the mobile phonewhich was in the pocket of the shirt of her husband, in herpossession and she checked the same after two days i.e. afterthe last rites were over and she found one chit kept in themobile phone cover, wherein it was stated that the petitionerAnnasaheb and applicant Sachin have taken amount ofRs.2,85,00,000/- and Rs.45,00,000/- respectively. He has nodocumentary evidence to show that they have taken the saidamount but they are not returning the amount and they areharassing him and the said amount is not only belonging to himbut also of his customers and friends and therefore, he had nooption but to commit suicide. Learned Advocates submit that ifthe statements of the witnesses recorded by police underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are considered,then it would show that huge amount was taken by deceasedSiddheshwar from these persons and in favour of some personshe has issued the receipts and they have also given thedocumentary evidence and it therefore, shows that in fact cria-943.24+9Siddheshwar has taken huge amount from all these persons andit appears that he could not repay them the amount. There isabsolutely no evidence regarding the amount given to theapplicant and petitioner. Therefore, there is no question ofharassment by them. With this evidence, the applicant or thepetitioner need not be asked to face the trial. 6.The learned APP strongly opposes the Application as wellas the Petition and submits that though in the suicide chit thathas been left by Siddheshwar it is stated that he has nodocumentary proof, yet why he would have unnecessarilyinvolved the applicant and petitioner, is a question. Though fromthe statements of the witnesses it can be seen that deceased hascollected the amount from them but in the said suicide note it isstated by him that by collecting those amounts, he had given itto the petitioner Annasaheb and applicant Sachin. Voluminousevidence has been collected and therefore, this cannot be takenas a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned APP alsopoints out that handwriting expert’s opinion has been receivedand it is confirmed that the handwriting in the suicide notematches with the natural handwriting of the deceased. cria-943.24+107.Before proceeding to consider the factual aspects involved,we would like to have glance at the legal position. In order toprove abetment to commit suicide as contemplated underSection 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution will haveto prove Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The law on thispoint has been summarized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SwamyPrahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438,Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731,Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618,Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,2002 Cri.L.J. 2796; Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. ofNCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, Madan Mohan Singh vs.State of Gujrat and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S.S.Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri)3298 (S.C.)., State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nairand others, reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3351. 8.In M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the DeputySuperintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Hon’ble ApexCourt has observed that, abetment involves a mental process ofinstigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a