High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

cria-4605.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4605 OF 2023Adnan Hamid Shaikh,Age-45 years, Occu:Private Business,R/o-Majalgaon, Beed,Taluka and District-Beed. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Officer In-charge, Police Station Beed (City), District-Beed,2) X Y Z (Name withheld) ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Ubaid S. Hashmi Advocate i/by Mr. Shashikant Shekade Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. N.R. Thorat Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 12th AUGUST 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 18th SEPTEMBER 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Applicant has filed present Application filed for quashing cria-4605.232Charge-sheet No.78 of 2023 i.e. the proceedings in R.C.C.No.649 of 2023, pending before the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Beed, arising out of the First Information Report (forshort “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 140 of 2023 registered withPolice Station, Beed (City), District-Beed, on 2nd July 2023, forthe offence punishable under Sections 306, 500 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deshmukh instructedby learned Advocate Mr. Shekade for the applicant, learned APPMr. Gaikwad for respondent State and learned Advocate Mr.Thorat for respondent No.2.3.It will not be out of place to mention here that the presentapplicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal WritPetition No.1499 of 2023 for quashing the FIR. The said writpetition came to be disposed of as withdrawn on 19th October2023, by this Court, to which Division Bench one of us i.e.SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. was party. However, it is to be notedthat on the same day the charge-sheet appears to have beenfiled before the learned Magistrate, Beed and therefore, thepetition appears to have been withdrawn. Any way, this Court cria-4605.233had not considered the material in the charge-sheet on the daywhen the earlier writ petition was withdrawn and therefore,present Application is maintainable.4.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deshmukh instructed by Mr.Shekade Advocate has taken us through the entire charge-sheetalong with the FIR. He submits that the FIR has been filed byrespondent No.2, who is the widow of deceased SandeepPimpale. The documents on record would show that Sandeep hasset himself to fire in front of the office of the DistrictSuperintendent of Police, Beed at 11.45 p.m., on 23rd May 2023.He was immediately admitted by police to the GovernmentHospital at Beed and he expired on 2nd July 2023. After heexpired, the FIR has been lodged on 2nd July 2023. An offenceunder Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registeredagainst deceased Sandeep. As per the informant, presentapplicant was along with the prosecutrix when earlier FIR waslodged against Sandeep and it is the impression that was carriedby Sandeep that the present applicant had instigated the saidprosecutrix in lodging the FIR against him. Perusal of the FIRvide Crime No.165 of 2023 would show that it was lodged on 18thMay 2023 and Sandeep had given information regarding lodging cria-4605.234of the said report to present respondent No.2 on 20th May 2023.In the present FIR, it is stated that while undergoing thetreatment in the Government Hospital, Beed, Sandeep wasstating that he has felt defamed in the society and therefore, hehas lost the desire to live. But the entire charge-sheet wouldshow that there is no dying declaration recorded by the police. IfSandeep was in a state to give statement, then his statementought to have been recorded. Entire record would not show thatat any point of time the applicant had met deceased Sandeepand had done any active part or he had desire that Sandeepshould commit suicide. The said prosecutrix who had filed FIRagainst deceased Sandeep is the relative of respondent No.2.The prosecutrix was serving as a manager in the hotel of presentapplicant since 2021. The applicant had accompanied theprosecutrix to the police station when prosecutrix wanted tolodge the FIR. But that does not mean that he had instigated theprosecutrix in lodging the report. The basic ingredients of theoffence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are notgetting attracted. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is non-cognizable offence.5.Learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No.2 cria-4605.235strongly opposed the Application and submitted that in fact thesaid prosecutrix who had levelled allegations under Section 376of the Indian Penal Code etc., in Crime No.165 of 2023, has illicitrelations with the present applicant. The said prosecutrix hadtried to have a Nikah between her minor daughter and son ofapplicant against the wish of her daughter. Even the son of thepresent applicant had tried to commit rape on the minordaughter of the prosecutrix. When all these facts were revealedto grandfather of said daughter of the prosecutrix, then he hadtaken the custody of the said daughter. He lodged a complaintapplication with the police station on 29th May 2023. The saidprosecutrix had made allegations against deceased Sandeep inrespect of rape in the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2020. She hasalso stated that the co-accused with Sandeep had alsocommitted rape on her. She had lodged the report after aboutnine years. Certainly, such acts by the said lady had amountedto defamation and the present applicant was instigating the saidprosecutrix who is in fact in the relations from paternal side ofrespondent No.2. It is not in dispute that Sandeep hascommitted suicide by setting himself on fire and he has givenoral dying declaration to the family members. Though it is aweak kind of evidence, it can be taken note of while considering cria-4605.236the application for quashing the FIR. When entire evidence hasbeen collected and the charge-sheet has been filed, let there bea trial. 6.It will not be out of place to mention here that whilehearing the matter when we went through the spot panchnamaannexed in the charge-sheet, it was dated 24th May 2023,executed between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. It was obvious to askwhen the FIR was lodged on 2nd July 2023, then how the spotpanchnama came to be executed on 24th May 2023, of the spotwhere deceased set himself to fire. Then it was revealed fromthe contents that there was Crime No.117 of 2023, filed underSection 309 of the Indian Penal Code against Sandeep andtherefore, we had called the papers from the said case.Accordingly, those documents were produced along with theforwarding letter. It could then be revealed that the said FIR inthat matter i.e. Crime No.117 of 2023, came to be filed by policehead constable Suryakant Annasaheb Andhale on 24th May 2023and it was on behalf of the State. He has stated that he alongwith other officials were on guard duty in the intervening night of23rd May 2023 to 24th May 2023. Around 23.00 hours they sawthat a person in the flames had come from the gate of the office cria-4605.237of District Superintendent of Police, Beed and the police personsgathered around that person. All the police persons extinguishedthe fire. At that time Sandeep was talking. He disclosed his nameand then Sandeep was asked as to why he had set himself tofire. Sandeep has stated that false offence has been lodgedagainst him and therefore, he has set himself to the fire.Thereafter the police persons took him to hospital. That means,Sandeep was admitted to hospital on 23rd May 2023, itself. In theinvestigation of the said Crime No.117 of 2023, by takingnecessary endorsement regarding the consciousness of Sandeep,his statement has been recorded. He has stated that he came toknow from a news clipping in the newspaper on 20th May 2023,that the offence has been registered against him. Theprosecutrix is his cousin mother-in-law and therefore, he feltthat he has been defamed and therefore, he has set himself tofire. In fact the police ought to have attached those papers fromCrime No.117 of 2023, to the present case. It has been thenreported that since Sandeep expired on 2nd July 2023, abatedsummary was presented on 4th August 2023, before the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. 7.Thus, here is a fact that the prosecution / investigation by cria-4605.238State cannot take two stands. In Crime No.117 of 2023, theState had blamed deceased Sandeep for his attempt to commitsuicide and in his oral dying declaration Sandeep had not blamedthe present applicant. Now in the present case, after death ofSandeep, the relatives have tried to say that the presentapplicant and the prosecutrix, who had levelled charges of rapeagainst deceased, have defamed deceased Sandeep andtherefore, he has committed suicide. In other words, whenSandeep had not blamed the present applicant in his oral dyingdeclaration, the present informant and the relatives, who havealso stated that during the treatment Sandeep used to say thathe felt that he has been defamed and has no desire to live,should not have made such allegations against present applicant.8.Even on merits, from the charge-sheet in respect ofoffence under Section 306, 500 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, it can be seen that except the oralstatements of the informant and the witnesses, there is nothing.Oral dying declaration is a very weak kind of evidence and asaforesaid, there is a dying declaration in writing of Sandeep inCrime No.117 of 2023, for the offence punishable under Section309 of the Indian Penal Code, we cannot even look at the oral cria-4605.239dying declaration, at prima facie stage also. If we consider theopinion as to the probable cause of death, it is stated that “deathdue to septicemia due to 53% burns”. The percentage of theburns would show that he had only 1% burns on neck and otheris to the lower limbs and abdomen. That means, Sandeep wouldhave been able to speak from 23rd May 2023 to 2nd July 2023,but there was absolutely no attempt on the part of theinvestigating officer to record the dying declaration of Sandeep.9.Even if we take the FIR and the statements of thewitnesses supporting the FIR as it is, yet except the statementthat the present applicant was along with the prosecutrix whilelodging the FIR, there is nothing. There is no active part thatwas alleged to be played by the present applicant. Here, wewould like to take note of the legal position. In recent decision inAbhinav Mohan Delkar vs. the State of Maharashtra and others,Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18th August2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered many leadingcases, i.e., the decision in Ude Singh and Others. v. State ofHaryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, Pawan Kumar v. State of HimachalPradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 78, Amalendu Pal vs. State of WestBengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar cria-4605.2310Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, 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 Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine 3835, Stateof West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73. After takinginto consideration all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inAbhinav Mohan Delkar vs. the State of Maharashtra and others(supra), observed thus:-“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 person cria-4605.2311did 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 casefrom 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, taking into consideration the facts and the law,it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicant is asked to cria-4605.2312face the trial. Hence, we pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The Charge-sheet No.78 of 2023 i.e. theproceedings in R.C.C. No.649 of 2023, pendingbefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed,arising out of the First Information Report videCrime No. 140 of 2023, registered with PoliceStation, Beed (City), District-Beed, on 2nd July2023, for the offence punishable under Sections306, 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, stands quashed and set aside as againstapplicant - Adnan Hamid Shaikh. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/SEP25