High Court
Facts
3942.23crapln.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD28 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3942 OF 20231.Balasaheb S/o Arjun Chavhan,Age: 58 Years, Occu: Service,R/o. Walhekarwadi, Balvant colony,S.No. 40, Pune.2.Milind S/o Sambhaji Kamble,Age: 58 Years, Occu. Service,R/o House No.M-1, Anand NivasSasane Nagar, Sy. No.311/13,Lane, No.13, Hadpsar Pune.3.Vikas S/o Babasaheb AghavAge 42 years, Occu. Service,R/o Plot No.20, RadheshyamHousing Society, Gavhane Vasti,Bhosari Pune-31 ....APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Police Station, Ahmedpur,Tq. & Dist. Ahmedpur.2.Meera Navnath Pendile,Age: 29 years, Occu: House Hold,R/a. Morewadi, Ta. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ….Mr Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for ApplicantsMr G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMr S. T. Chalikwar, Advocate for Respondent No.2[1] 3942.23crapln.odt CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 25 AUGUST 2025ORDER :.Present application has been filed initially for quashing the FIR videC.R. No.0338/2022, dated 06/07/2022, registered with Ahmedpur PoliceStation, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur and later on, by way of an amendmentfor quashing the charge-sheet bearing No.316/2024 i.e. R.C.C.No.465/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ahmedpur for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2.Heard learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APP and learnedAdvocate for respondent No.2.3.Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, even if weconsider the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet as it is, yet it will notreveal the prima facie ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.The informant in the FIR herself has clarified the facts which would revealthat the present applicants appear to have promised deceased that theywould give employment and in order to secure that employment they havetaken amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in installments. However, that incident had[2] 3942.23crapln.odttaken place in 2024. Respondent no.2 is the widow of deceased NavnathMaroti Pendile. Navnath had completed his education in D.Ed. and whenit was promised to him that he would be employed as a teacher inMunicipal Corporation, he had agreed to give the amount. In fact, afterthe first payment of Rs.2,50,000/- was made, Navnath was sent on serviceas a teacher with Mhatoba Balwadkar Vidyalaya, Balewadi, Pune for somedays, and thereafter, the applicants had alleged to have taken furtheramount of Rs.2,20,000/-. Thereafter, for getting the permission from theGovernment for his appointment, amount of Rs.80,000/- was taken.Navnath was not given salary equivalent to the Government teachers butwas paid amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. for eight months. After a year, he wasasked not to report to the duty. In the meantime in 2015, the presentapplicants had prepared a forged document of appointment letter withPratibha Pawar Vidyalaya, Fursungi, Hadapsar, Pune. The deceased hadgiven amount of Rs.46,000/- by cheque to applicant No.1. It is allegedthat applicant Nos.1 and 2 with their common intention in order to grabamount of Rs.10,00,000/- had taken amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and cheatedNavnath, as no permanent job was then offered to him. Navnath had infact sold his land for giving that amount. Respondent No.2 alleges thatNavnath was under mental tension. He returned to the native place in2018. He had no source of income and then in January 2018, he had[3]
Legal Reasoning
3942.23crapln.odtprepared a letter holding the applicants responsible for cheating andfinancial loss as well as mental harassment to him and it was stated that hewould be committing suicide. However, the family members restrainedhim from committing doing so. Since last 3 years, somebody from thefamily used to be around him and thereby restraining from committing anyuntoward incidence. Yet, Navnath used to be under tension. Heultimately committed suicide around 11:00 to 11:30 on 07/05/2022. 4.Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that there isabsolutely no proximity between the acts alleged against the applicants.Even if, for sake of arguments is it accepted that some amount was givento the applicants, the deceased had to take a legal recourse if he felt that hehas been cheated and unnecessary financial burden has been put on him.Even for the recovery of the amount, he could have approach the Court.At no point of time since 2014 to 2022, he has lodged report and therefore,when the ingredients of the offence are not even prima facie made out. Asthe statements of witnesses are in the nature of copy-paste and the samefact reiterated, the applicants need not be asked to face the trial.5.Learned APP strongly opposed the application and submits that, itappears that since 2014, there was design and time to time extraction ofthe amount by the applicants to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-, yet permanent[4] 3942.23crapln.odtjob was not offered to Navnath, neither the amount was returned. Sincethe charge-sheet is filed, let there be trial.6.Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has placed onrecord the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein, shehas stated that she had filed the FIR due to misunderstanding and as nowthe dispute has been settled, she has no desire to proceed with the matter.7.Here the first fact that is required to be taken note of that,respondent No.2 states that she has settled the matter with the applicants.Intentionally, she has suppressed the terms of settlement. There cannot beFIR due to misunderstanding, wherein she has blamed the applicants forabetting the suicide of her husband. With all the pains, we have to observethat, now a days, death of a person is not even taken seriously by thefamily members, including the wife. There is a room to believe thatintentionally the false FIR was filed when the husband has committed thesuicide may be for different reasons. She has tried to rely on the letter leftby her husband in 2018 in the name of Police Commissioner, Pune as thepiece of evidence for abetting the commission of suicide by Navnath.Now, she says that it was her misunderstanding. Be that as it may. As thedocuments on record are not to the extent with intention, in order to grabamounts from the applicants, the FIR was lodged, we may not direct[5] 3942.23crapln.odtaction to be taken against respondent No.2.8.We would like to prefer to go on merits of the case, as to whetherprima facie case has been made out or not ? The facts narrated in the FIRare already stated, and therefore, we do not want to reproduce the same.Suffice it to say that, since 2014, it is stated that the amount has beentaken by the applicants under the pretext to give job to Navnath.Thereafter, it appears that, for one year he has worked in the schoolwithout any complaint to the appropriate authorities. Then it is stated that,after one year, suddenly the school asked him not to report. That meanshe was not allowed to work which could have been taken as temporarysuspension or illegal suspension, for which legal action could have beentaken by Navnath. Thereafter, it is also stated that in 2015, another orderwas given for appointment in another school/college. It turned down to beforged. The second opportunity was then available with the Navnath tolodge the report. Yet, he did not. He shifted to his native place in 2018and committed suicide in 2022. There is absolutely no statement in theFIR or in the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CriminalProcedure Code that after Navnath shifted to his native place in 2018,thereafter also the present applicants were in contact with him and therewas any attempt on the part of the applicants to take the rest of the amount[6] 3942.23crapln.odtfrom Navnath or to appoint him in some other institution. For the amountthat was allegedly given, Navnath could have filed suit for recovery.However, the fact still remains that, if that amount has been given forsecuring a job, then it is given by way of illegal means or in a way as abribe, which then cannot be said to be a legally recoverable amount.When there is a system for employment, then nobody can surpass it byway of illegal means and if there is such attempt, it cannot be said to bethen abetment for anything and especially it cannot be termed as fraud orcheating, if the alleged promise for that amount is then not fulfilled. 9.We would like to rely on the recent decision dated 18/08/2025 ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others, (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185/2024) ofwhich paragraph Nos. 21 to 24 read as under :-“21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigatinga person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without apositive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abettingthe deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. 22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein beforecited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continuedover a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read withSection 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find thatthe suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment,the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to theextreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the[7] 3942.23crapln.odtcamel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger,sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drovethe victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections;but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particularact of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim wascontinuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to theextreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positiveinstigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely bywhat goes on in the mind of the victim.23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, butto take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannotlead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person.What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the allegedperpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and theattendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such anend. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by hisaction to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Didthe thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of theaccused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstancesarising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the factsof each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationshipbetween the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one casefrom another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is aconscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person tosuicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often arustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found tohave the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There isno uniformity in how different individuals respond and react underpressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certainpeople crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put theblame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at alltimes, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would notbe the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306.”[8] 3942.23crapln.odt10.The legal position governing Section 107 of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been crystallized in thisdecision and the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are alsoreferred. 11.Therefore, taking into consideration the entire material in thecharge-sheet and the legal position, we are of the opinion that prima facie,the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code are not getting attracted, and therefore, it would bean abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial.However, for the intentionally suppression of the settlement, we wouldimpose costs on the applicants. Hence, we proceed to pass followingorder :-ORDER(I)The application stands allowed. (II)The proceeding in R.C.C. No.465/2024, pending before thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, arising out of theFIR vide C.R. No.0338/2022 dated 06/07/2022, registered withAhmedpur Police Station, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur, for offencepunishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code stands quashed and set aside against the applicants. [9] 3942.23crapln.odt(III)The applicants are directed to deposit amount of Rs.60,000/-in all with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Bench atAurangabad within a period of one month. In case of failure ontheir part to deposit the said amount, it be recovered as arrears ofland revenue. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEsjk[10]