High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
cria-1966.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1966 OF 20241) Nilesh S/o Sahebrao Sonawane, Age-42 years, Occu:Teacher, R/o-49, Near MSEB Quarter, Laxmi Nagar, Bajajnagar, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad,2) Suresh S/o Sahebrao Sonawane, Age-38 years, Occu:Teacher, R/o- At Post-Sonkheda, Post-Golegaon Taluka-Khultabad, District-Aurangabad,3) Vijay Bandudas Rathod, Age-43 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Chandhai, Post-Kothari Taluka-Mangloorpir, District-Washim,4) Shubham Khandu Ghuge, Age-28 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Sasegaon Manur, Taluka and District-Aurangabad,5) Meera Balasaheb Satwadhar, Age-44 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Jijau Nagar, Manwat, Taluka-Manwat, District-Parbhani ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its P.I. Police Station, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad,2) Shriram Tukaram Patil, Age-44 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Savkheda, Taluka-Pachora, District-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
cria-1966.242 ... Mr. A.D. Ostwal Advocate h/f. Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav Advocate and Mr. Vikram L. Bhange Advocate for Applicants. Ms. R.P. Gour, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. None present for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 5th AUGUST 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 4th SEPTEMBER 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed, initially for quashing theFirst Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 138of 2024, registered with Police Station, MIDC, Waluj, District-Aurangabad on 20th February 2024, for the offence punishableunder Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, and later on by way of amendment for quashing theCharge-sheet No.114 of 2024 i.e. the proceedings in RegularCriminal Case No.1634 of 2024, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ostwal holding for learnedAdvocate Mr. Jadhav for applicants, learned APP Ms. Gour for cria-1966.243respondent No.1.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us throughthe entire charge-sheet including the FIR. Respondent No.2-informant is the father of deceased Leena. The applicants are notdisputing the fact that Leena committed suicide on 20th February2024. She was taking education in Garudzep Academy run byapplicant No.1. The said Academy is a private limited company,imparting training and education to various students aspiring tohave career in the fields like Police, Revenue, Navy, Army etc.Applicant No.2 is the founder member of the academy. ApplicantNo.1 is a director of the academy. Applicant No.3 is the branchhead and teacher in the academy. Applicant No.4 is anaccountant and applicant No.5 is the resident warden of ladieshostel in the academy. The informant has contended that he hadpaid the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in three installments towardsthe education of Leena when she took admission in June 2022.He was paying mess charges regularly, however, sometimes heused to pay it belatedly. Leena used to inform her father and thefamily members that in case of delay in paying the amount ofthe mess charges, the academy was not giving breakfastproperly. Applicant No.1 used to give mental harassment and cria-1966.244insulting treatment in front of other students. The other accusedpersons were also insulting her and refusing to give her food toeat. The training was difficult and applicant No.1 was notadjusting anybody. The informant used to say to Leena thatsince applicant No.1 has taken guarantee of service to her afterthe training, she should bear the difficulties for some days. WhenLeena had gone to her house at the time of Diwali festival, atthat time she disclosed to the informant that applicant No.1 wasinsulting her for non payment of amount and due to her darkcomplexion, in front of other students. She was in fact not readyto resume her training but somehow the informant persuadedher and sent her back to the academy. In January 2024, Leenahad gone to father’s house for taking driving license for the fourwheeler. Again she told about the harassment given to her byapplicant No.1. She also told that when she told to applicantNo.1 that he should understand the financial condition of herfamily; applicant No.1 insulted her by saying that she shouldnot teach him, if she has so much feeling about her parents,then she should die, she has no eligibility, he has takenguarantee to give service to her but in case if he will not be ableto, then she should do whatever she wants. Again by persuadingher, informant had sent her back to the academy. In the cria-1966.245meantime niece of the informant by name Manasi also returnedfrom the academy within two months. In spite of the suicidecommitted by Leena on 20th February 2024 in the morning, till6.00 p.m. the accused persons had not informed the informantabout the same but he came to know it from his niece. In hissupplementary statement, the informant states that on 20thFebruary 2024, he had gone to the academy and met applicantNo.1. At that time applicant No.1 offered him an amount ofRs.2,50,000/- and asked him not to pursue the matter. However,the informant has not accepted the said offer and went to GhatiHospital. 4.Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants by pointingout the above said facts stated in the FIR, submits that there isabsolutely no role that has been attributed to applicant Nos.2to 5. All the allegations appear to be against applicant No.1. Noovert act or active participation has been alleged against theapplicants. If we consider the statements of the witnesses,Prabha Gaikwad, Ridabi Pathan, Deepali Honmane, under Section164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then it can be seen thatthey were also taking education by staying in the hostel alongwith Leena. These girls knew that there was love affair betweendeceased Leena and a boy but later on said boy refused to cria-1966.246perform the marriage with her. Leena was afraid of her familymembers including the cousin sister Manasi and therefore, itappears that she has committed suicide. Therefore, when allthese facts are coming on record, then though it is tried to bepointed out by the prosecution that there are statements ofother witnesses and especially Manasi, under Section 161 as wellas 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fact that cannot bedenied is, that the reason behind the suicide of Leena is differentand it was never abetted by the present applicants. Therefore, itwould be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are askedto face the trial. 5.Per contra, the learned APP for the State has stronglyopposed the Application and submitted that the entire charge-sheet is before the trial Court and therefore, let there be a trial,as there are statements of other witnesses also which wouldsupport the prosecution. Statements of some witnesses who hadtaken training in the past from the academy and some of whomhad left the academy, would show that they were given insultingtreatment forcing them to quit the training. If a person isinsulted in front of others on the ground of delayed payment ofthe mess charges, then it certainly causes the said personmental harassment and in the said process, when Leena has cria-1966.247committed suicide, it can be said that the accused personscreated such situation or environment, forcing Leena to commitsuicide. Therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court shouldexercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.6.Before turning to the facts of the case, we would like toconsider the legal position with recent decision in Abhinav MohanDelkar vs. the State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal AppealNos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18th August 2025, by theHon’ble Supreme Court. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Courthas considered many leading cases, for example, Ude Singh andOthers. v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, wherein it hasbeen observed that:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite orencourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement ofinstigation though it is not necessary that actual words mustbe used to that effect or what constitutes instigation mustnecessarily and specifically be suggestive of theconsequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite theconsequence must be capable of being spelt out. The presentone is not a case where the accused had by his acts oromission or by a continued course of conduct created suchcircumstances that the deceased was left with no otheroption except to commit suicide in which case an instigationmay have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or cria-1966.248emotion without intending the consequences to actuallyfollow cannot be said to be instigation.”7.Then, further decision considered in Abhinav MohanDelkar vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (supra), is PawanKumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017)7 SCC 78, whereinit has been observed that:-“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we arerequired to address whether there has been abetment incommitting suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegationof harassment without any positive action in proximity to thetime of occurrence on the part of the accused that led aperson to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely tocause harassment in ordinary course of things will not comewithin the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or aword in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment.There has to be positive action that creates a situation forthe victim to put an end to life.44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and byhis continuous course of conduct created such a situation asa consequence of which the deceased was left with no otheroption except to commit suicide. The active acts of theaccused have led the deceased to put an end to her life.That apart, we do not find any material on record whichcompels the Court to conclude that the victim committingsuicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discordand difference in domestic life quite common to the societyto which the victim belonged. On the other hand, theaccused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteemand self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to cria-1966.249commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact,induced her to extinguish her life spark.”8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs.the State of Maharashtra and others, (supra), has furtherconsidered the decision in Amalendu Pal vs. State of WestBengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, wherein again the point highlightingthe positive action proximate to the time of occurrence wasconsidered. In S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010)12 SCC 190, it was held that, in order to convict a person underSection 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clearmens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act ordirect act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing nooption and that act must have been intended to push thedeceased into such a position that he committed suicide. Further,decisions in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT Of Delhi),(2009) 16 SCC 605, Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat,(2010) 8 SCC 628, Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtraand another, 2024 SCC OnLine 3835, have been referred.9.In Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. the State of Maharashtra andothers, (supra), following are the observations:- cria-1966.2410“22.What comes out essentially from the various decisionsherein before cited is that, even if there is allegation ofconstant harassment, continued over a long period; to bringin the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 307, stillthere has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that thesuicide was the direct consequence of such continuousharassment, the last proximate incident having finally driventhe subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life.Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that finalevent, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impactresulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove thevictim to that extreme act, often depends on individualpredilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively anddemonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to findmens rea. Merely because the victim was continuouslyharassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to theextreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in findinga positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannotbe gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative oroption, but to take his life, because of what another persondid or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea andresultant abetment on that other person. What constitutesmens rea is the intention and purpose of the allegedperpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or wordsand the attendant circumstances, which in all probabilitycould lead to such an end. The real intention of the accusedand whether he intended by his action to at least possiblydrive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought ofgoading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accusedor whether it can be inferred from the facts andcircumstances arising in the case, as the true test ofmens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The socialstatus, the community setting, the relationship between theparties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case cria-1966.2411from another. However harsh or severe the harassment,unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, todrive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be afinding of abetment under Section 306.24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, killyourself”; often a rustic expression against distastefulconduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients tocharge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is nouniformity in how different individuals respond and reactunder pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a fewrunaway and certain people crumble and at times take theextreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressureimposed and the person responsible for it, at all times,without something more to clearly discern an intention, wouldnot be the proper application of the penal provisions underSection 306.” 10.Therefore, in the light of this legal position, we arerequired to consider, as to whether the material on recordattracts the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.11.The contents of the FIR are already reproduced andtherefore, we are avoiding the repetition. The fact that isreflected in the FIR is mainly against applicant No.1. As regardsthe other applicants are concerned, it is stated that they werealso insulting deceased and were not giving her food to eat. Thefact is that when according to the informant, the harassmentwas going on since after June 2022, then why he had not met cria-1966.2412earlier to applicant Nos.1 and 2 who were responsible forrunning the academy. This could have been the normal conducton the part of the informant that he would meet the persons whowere troubling or harassing his daughter. It appears that Leena’scousin sister Manasi also got admitted in the said academy butshe left the same and returned. Now, in her statement underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as underSection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Manasi saysabout the insulting treatment that was alleged to have beengiven to Leena. In her statement dated 26th February 2024,Manasi states that she told Leena that they should go home.According to Manasi, she was also mentally tortured andtherefore, she left the academy on 11th December 2023. Leenatold Manasi that her father had deposited the amount with hardefforts, which would go in vain and therefore, she had notaccompanied Manasi. In spite of disclosure about the treatmentto the informant, it appears that the informant had not metapplicant Nos.1 and 2 to sort out the problem. Statement ofmother of deceased Leena is on the same line. Now, there arestatements of witnesses who had taken admission in theacademy, who states that the facilities at the academy were notgood and they used to be assaulted by the academy persons if cria-1966.2413they were not doing the assigned work. However, at the most itcan be said that those students were insisted upon by theapplicants to pay the amount towards the necessary charges.This cannot be found to be such a ground which will drive aperson to commit suicide. Now, there are certain students towhom Leena had told about the insulting treatment given to herby applicant No.1. The statements of these witnesses are notsufficient to show the proximity. Further, we are required toconsider the treatment that was allegedly given to Leena and notto those witnesses. Some witnesses say that they had seen theapplicants insulting Leena. Now, they are not explaining as towhether Leena was the only student who used to be in arrears ofthe amount. If there were other students also who had not giventhe charges or requisite fees, then if it is told to them in front ofthe other students to pay the charges, then it should not betaken as offending.12.Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that suchkind of treatment was given by the accused persons to deceasedLeena, then it can be stated that it started after June 2022 andsuicide has been committed on 20th February 2024. Therefore,there is no proximity in the cause of action to state that there isabetment to commit suicide. Now, it is a disputed fact as to cria-1966.2414whether applicants had not informed the fact of death of Leenato respondent No.2 and the family members. But certainly, thereis statement and a station diary entry stating that the academyhad informed about commission of suicide by Leena and then thepolice had gone to the place, brought down the dead body andthen it was shifted to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad.13.We do not want to go into the aspect of alleged love angleto the suicide tried to be created by the witnesses who werestated to be the friends of deceased Leena, as none of themhave given the name of the boy. Now, it is also stated by thosewitnesses that Leena was afraid of her father as well Manasi andthe boy had also refused to perform the marriage. In State ofWest Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, it has beenobserved thus:-“If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicidewas hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord anddifferences in domestic life quite common to the society towhich the victim belonged and such petulance, discord anddifferences were not expected to induce a similarlycircumstanced individual in a given society to commitsuicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfiedfor basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting theoffence of suicide should be found guilty.” cria-1966.241514.Insulting a girl on account of alleged dark skin is absolutelynot proper and it may be, to some extent, mental harassment,but certainly it cannot force one person to commit suicide unlessthat person is very much sensitive. In his statement underSection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the informanthas stated that mess fee for the period from November 2023 toFebruary 2024, was outstanding and on 5th February 2024, hehas paid the remaining amount of fees in the account of Leenaand Leena had then paid it to academy on PhonePe. That means,as on 5th February 2024, there was no amount outstanding underthe head of “mess fees”. At the cost of repetition, we would liketo say that the suicide was committed by Leena on 20th February2024, therefore, there ought to have been evidence as to whathappened after 5th February 2024 till 20th February 2024. Even iffor the sake of arguments it is accepted that applicants had notinformed the family members of Leena about her suicide, then itcan be stated that not informing the death by the applicants tothe father may be morally not proper but it will not attract anyoffence/criminal act. Therefore, after taking note of all thestatements and the material in the charge-sheet, we are of theopinion that the material is not disclosing the ingredients of theoffence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It would be, cria-1966.2416therefore, an abuse of process of law if the applicants are askedto face the trial. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The Charge-sheet No.114 of 2024 i.e. theproceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1634 of2024, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arising out ofthe First Information Report vide Crime No. 138 of2024, registered with Police Station, MIDC, Waluj,District-Aurangabad on 20th February 2024, for theoffence punishable under Section 306 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against applicant Nos. 1to 5 i.e. - 1) Nilesh S/o Sahebrao Sonawane,2) Suresh S/o Sahebrao Sonawane, 3) VijayBandudas Rathod, 4) Shubham Khandu Ghuge and5) Meera Balasaheb Satwadhar. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/SEP25