High Court · 2025
Facts
appln-204-2024 + 4.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2024Akash Uttamrao KaleAge: 31 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Palshi (Kh.), Tq. Kannad,District Aurangabad. .. ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Ardhapur,District Nanded. .. Respondent…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2024Ganesh Gajanan BangaleAge: 26 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Plot No.19, Gut No.61, Pokhari,Taluka and District Aurangabad. .. ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Ardhapur,District Nanded. .. Respondent…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2024Vishal s/o Nandkishor ThakurAge: 39 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. The Vinus K-9, ShahanoormiyaDarga, Near Jain International School,Aurangabad. .. ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Ardhapur,District Nanded. .. Respondent[1]
Legal Reasoning
appln-204-2024 + 4.odtfrom the point of view that when the transaction was entered intobetween the deceased and the respective applicants, each transaction isseparate and there cannot be application of Section 34 of Indian PenalCode i.e. the common intention. What kind of harassment was givenwould be a different aspect, as no details about the same are given.5.Before proceeding, we would like to consider the legal position.We would like to rely on the decision of this Court in Dilip S/o RamraoShirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [2016ALL MR (Cri) 4328], and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court inSanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,[2002 Cri.L.J. 2796], Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat andanother, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S. S. Chheena vs. VijayKumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.), ChitreshKumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605,Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr., [1995 Supp. (3) SCC438], Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P., [1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731],Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2001) 9 SCC 618], Stateof Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, reportedin AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3351, wherein the law has been madeclear. In Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao (supra), this Court, relying upon thecatena of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that it isnecessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the[6] appln-204-2024 + 4.odtaccused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased tocommit suicide and in the absence of availability of such material, theaccused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishableunder Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.6.Thus, taking into consideration the facts as well as the law, we donot find that there was any such act done by the present applicants,which would amount to abetment as contemplated under Section 109 ofIndian Penal Code. The basic ingredients are not attracted even afterconsidering the FIR as it is. Under such circumstance, the presentapplicants cannot be forced to undergo the further investigation as wellas the trial, if any. Case is made out for exercise of powers underSections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the followingorder :-ORDERI)All the Criminal Applications stand allowed.II)The FIR vide Crime No.424 of 2023 dated 11.11.2023registered with Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded for theoffences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside as againstthe present applicants in respective criminal applications.[7] appln-204-2024 + 4.odtIII)Fees of learned Advocate, who is appointed to represent thecause of respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.769 of 2025and Criminal Application No.1235 of 2024, is quantified atRs.5,000/- in each matter i.e. Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the HighCourt Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[8]
Arguments
appln-204-2024 + 4.odt…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.769 OF 2025Baban @ Maroti s/o Nagoji DakeAge: 49 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Phule Nagar, Ardhapur,Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded... ApplicantVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Investigation Officer,Ardhapur Police Station,District Nanded.2.Meera wd/o Gajanan GoreAge: 36 years, Occu.: HouseholdR/o. Sheni, Tq. Ardhapur,District Nanded. .. Respondents…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1235 OF 2024Uttamrao s/o Marotrao ShindeAge: 53 years, Occu.: Business,R/o. Bahirji Nagar, Basmat, Hingoli,Tq. And Dist. Hingoli. .. ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra2.Meera w/o Gajanan GoreAge: 36 years, Occu.: Household,R/o. Sheni, Tq. Ardhapur,District Nanded. .. Respondents…Mr. Prithviraj Bayas, Advocate h/f Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for the applicantsin Criminal Application Nos.204/2024, 193/2024 and 206/2024.Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Application No.769 of2025.[2] appln-204-2024 + 4.odtMr. Rameshwar M. Bhagwat, Advocate h/f Mr. G. P. Shinde, Advocate for theapplicant in Criminal Application No.1235 of 2024.Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1/State in all the applications.Mr. Baliram B. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Criminal ApplicationNos.204/2024, 193/2024 and 206/2024.Mr. Ajinkya Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Criminal Application Nos.769 of2025 and 1235 of 2024 (Appointed).... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE : 06 AUGUST 2025 ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-.All these applications are arising out of the same FIR andtherefore, taken up together.2.Present applications have been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR vide Crime No.424 of2023 dated 11.11.2023 registered with Ardhapur Police Station, DistrictNanded for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 read withSection 34 of Indian Penal Code.3.Heard learned Advocates appearing for the applicants inrespective applications, learned APP for respondent No.1/State in all theapplications and learned Advocates appearing for respondent No.2 inrespective applications. In order to cut short, it can be said that all the[3] appln-204-2024 + 4.odtAdvocates have made submissions in support of their respectivecontentions.4.The FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2, who is the widowof deceased Gajanan More. In the FIR, she states that her husbandGajanan was employed in a private company dealing with fertilizers andpesticides in respect of Green Plant Agriculture Company. He used tobring the material from the company and used to sell it to the agriculturalshop owners or agriculturists. He used to tell informant that he hassupplied material to various shop owners and he has invested hugeamount, however, those persons are not returning the said amount thatis why he has taken hand loan from others. Now, those persons fromwhom he has taken hand loan were harassing him. The informant foundhusband Gajanan under tension around 10.00 a.m. on 29.10.2023.Upon inquiry by her, Gajanan told that he has taken hand loan ofRs.20,000/- from Baban Dake and paid in cash Rs.1,50,000/-, still hewas harassing him for more amount of Rs.50,000/-. Aakash Kale andRajeshwar Patil had worked with him and taken cash of Rs.40,000/- fromhim and invested the said amount in a company, but they were notreturning him the said amount and giving threats now. He further toldthat the shop Shubham Krushi Sewa Kendra had supplied the materialat their risk which was taken from Gajanan, but the said shop owner isnot returning him the amount. Similar transaction was with Rokdeshwar[4] appln-204-2024 + 4.odtKrushi Sewa Kendra and Vishal Thakur. He told that loss of more thanRs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) has been caused to him and,therefore, he is under tension. Informant told him that he should not taketension, but then Gajanan went out of house. Around 2.20 p.m.informant’s nephew Satish told that he has received message fromGajanan on his mobile that Gajanan is committing suicide by consumingpoisonous substance. Gajanan had sent a selfie of drinking poisonoussubstance. Thereafter, search was made and Gajanan was found in anagricultural land. He was taken to Government Hospital, Ardhapur andthen to Civil Hospital, Vishnupuri, Nanded. Informant came to know thatsimilar message was sent to other relatives also by Gajanan. He hadalso sent messages to the present applicants. He was declared deadaround 1.30 a.m. on 11.11.2023 while undergoing treatment. Thus, it canbe seen that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted thatGajanan had entered into transactions with the applicants as alleged, yetthere are no details regarding when the transaction was entered into.Further, it appears that as against Aakash Kale, Rajeshwar Patil,Shubham Krushi Sewa Kendra, Rokdeshwar Krushi Sewa Kendra andVishal Thakur, the transaction appears to be illegal. If we consider themessages those were received by the applicants, it states about thetransaction. The informant has not given more details about thetransaction and even the investigation papers do not show any progress[5]