Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2025 · High Court

{1} REVN 30 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2025.Bhimrao S/o Arjun ShekadeAged : 46 years, Occu.: Agri.R/o. Patsara, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed.….Applicant Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station Amalner,District Beed.2.Sushil W/o Gopinath GarjeAge: 21 years, Occu.: Service,R/o. : Patsara, Tq.Ashti,District Beed.….Respondents …..Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nisargraj B. GarjeAPP for Respondent no.1 : Mrs.Saie Swapnil Joshi Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Sandip Ramnath Andhale….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 05 MARCH, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 07 MARCH, 2026 JUDGMENT :1.Revisionist takes exception to judgment and order dated01-01-2025 passed on application exh.27 in Sessions Case No.94 of2022 by which discharge application filed under Section 227 of theCode of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Beed. {2} REVN 30 OF 20252.In consequence to report of one Sushil Gopinath Garje dated11-10-2021, Amalner Police Station, District Beed, registered CrimeNo.213 of 2021 for offence under Sections 306 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code (IPC) on allegation of abetment to commit suicideby informant’s father namely Gopinath by consuming insectiside.Allegations were that, in the backdrop of quarrel taking place on04-10-2021 on account of digging well, threats were issued byaccused persons named in the FIR and deceased consumedinsecticide under mental stress and tension. Resultantly, on saidreport, above crime is registered against in all five persons includingrevision petitioner.3.Learned counsel for revision petitioner would point out thatthere is false implication. According to him, by no stretch ofimagination, alleged occurrence of previous day would amount toabetment to commit suicide. He pointed out that, in fact there wasnon-cognizable case reported by revisions petitioner’s son with policemachinery and as such, recourse to law was taken. That, general andvague allegations are made about issuing life threats and raisingquarrels. {3} REVN 30 OF 20254.He next submitted that, investigation was completed butnothing incriminating has surfaced in the same. On the contrary,there was said to be suicide note, but it was recovered and handedover two days after FIR rendering doubt about its authenticity andcredibility. 5.He further pointed out that, in fact five persons are named inthe FIR and this Court was pleased to quash proceedings against fourof them by order dated 23-11-2022. It is pointed out that, at thattime, present revision petitioner had withdrawn said application onhis own accord. However, he invited attention of this Court to theobservations made in the above order, more particularly, paragraphnos.11, 12 and 15. Consequently, in the light of above, it is hissubmission that there is no incriminating material to face trial andhence, finding fault in the impugned order passed by learned trialcourt, he prays to allow revision. 6.In answer to above, both learned APP as well as learnedcounsel for complainant would point out that present revisionpetitioner had initially instituted proceedings for quashment, but haswithdrawn and no liberty was sought to move for discharge. {4} REVN 30 OF 2025Therefore, very discharge application was not maintainable. Theyfurther pointed out that, accused persons are direct cause of suicideby father of informant. That, there was no other reason. Accordingto him, there were series of instances of threats and only because ofthe same, suicide has been committed by father of the informant.Moreover, according to them, there is suicide note and report ofhandwriting expert is awaited. Therefore, they justify the order ofrejection by learned trial court and urged for similar treatment.7.Heard. Perused the papers.8.Present application being discharge application, beforeadverting to merits of the case, it would be just and proper to spellout settled legal position while considering discharge applicationunder Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled positionthat, at such stage, Court dealing with such application is merelyexpected to determine existence of prima facie material forproceeding to frame charge and make accused persons face trial.Material gathered during investigation is expected to be sifted withlimited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds toproceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor meticulous {5} REVN 30 OF 2025analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the only duty ofCourt is to ascertain whether there is prima facie material suggestingexistence of essential ingredients for the offences, which are allegedto be committed.Above position has been time and again reiterated since thecases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union ofIndia v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4, and adecade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chanderand another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector ofPolice Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UttarPradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.9.Sifted the chargesheet with limited purpose. FIR dated11-10-2021 seems to be at the instance of one Sushil Gopinath Garjeand substance of the FIR is that, informant resides at Pune whereashis parents reside at native village Patsara. According to him, in saidvillage, they have 11 acres land, which has a ridge which divides landof neighbour Bhimrao Arjun Shekade (revision petitioner). That, {6} REVN 30 OF 2025since 2-3 years, there were quarrels on account of digging of well inthe field. According to informant, his father had requested BhimraoArjun Shekade (revision petitioner), Ankush Mahadeo Garje, Balaji @Balu Bhimrao Shekade, Bhagwat Ginyandeo Garje and AnkushGinyandeo Garje for taking Kharip crop aside and those persons hadissued life threats and quarreled with his father. Informant’s fatherhad reported him said incidence on telephone and he used to giveunderstanding to his father. On similar count, there was quarrel withabove named persons in the evening of 04-10-2021 during whichaccused persons had visited house of his father and issued lifethreats. Even this incident was reported to him on telephone. On05-10-2021, informant claims to have come to his native and furtherclaims to have learnt from his father about complaint filed by BalajiBhimrao Shekade at Police Station. Upon which, informant againclaims to have given understanding to his father. On 06-10-2021,when he and accused persons went to resolve the dispute at PoliceStation, Amalner and at that time, his father was in the house.According to informant, because of the quarrel, his father was intension. That, when Bhimrao Shekade refused to resolve the disputeand went away, he came back home from Police Station. That timehe found his father lying in the doors and according to him, his {7} REVN 30 OF 2025father consumed Rogor insecticide kept on the tin roof. That time hismother was in the field and father was alone and therefore, hepassed information to Ambadas Garje and thereafter, shifted hisfather to hospital. 10.Thus, occurrence dated 04-10-2021 and 5-10-2021 involvingquarrel between deceased and accused, alleged consumption is of06-10-2021. From the report itself, it is emerging that deceasedcommitted suicide while he was alone at native village namelyPatsara. In fact the revision petitioner against whom allegations arelevelled was in the very company of informant at Amalner PoliceStation which is miles away. There is nothing to show that accusedhad come in contact with deceased till evening of 06-10-2021.11.Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306of the IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments,Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has reiterated that, apartfrom inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has tobe mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is alsotime and again clarified while dealing with above provision. Few cases that could be named are, Ramesh Kumar v. State of {8} REVN 30 OF 2025Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S. Chheena v. Vijay KumarMahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as well as M. Mohan v. TheState represented by The Deputy Superintendent of PoliceMANU/SC/0161/2011, wherein standard of “instigation” iselaborately dealt and discussed.Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State ofMaharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025, the Hon’ble ApexCourt has reinforced “proximate trigger” doctrine emphasizing thatthere has to be close temporal and casual connection between theconduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment,without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain thecharge. 12.Here, keeping the above settled law in mind and contents ofreport on the basis of which complaint is lodged, it is noticed thatsweeping allegations are made against five persons including revisionpetitioner for issuing life threats. On the other hand, there seems tobe NC at the instance of son of one of the accused with Police Stationon 05-10-2021 i.e. a day earlier to the incident. Suicide is committedon evening of next date i.e. on 06-10-2021. When neither revisionrevision petitioner nor other accused are directly in touch with {9} REVN 30 OF 2025deceased so as to hold abetment, inducement or instigation, it wouldbe unjust and improper to connect them to the alleged consumption.What informant is precisely alleging that, because of previousquarrels and threats, his father was under tension. Moreover,accused persons themselves seem to have taken recourse to lawenforcing agencies one day prior to alleged suicide. In proximity tosaid consumption, accused are no were around to deceased nor havemet deceased on the said day so as to connect them. 13.Apart form statements of witnesses, investigating machineryseems to have laid hands on suicide note, but as pointed out, it isshown to be recovered and seized after one day of FIR. This Court isin receipt of report from Analyzer vide communication dated 02-01-2025 annexing the very opinion of handwriting expert and he hasopined on 02-01-2025 that, “It has not been possible to express anydefinite opinion as regards to the identity or otherwise of theenclosed writing marked as Exh.Q-1 in comparison with the enclosedwritings, marked as Exs.N-1 to N-17, for sufficient individualidentifying characteristics for comparison”. Therefore, even saidpiece of incriminating evidence as per prosecution, is of no avail to it. {10} REVN 30 OF 202514.Learned counsel for informant sought reliance on judgment ofthe Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander2012 (9) SCC 460 and Another, which is on the legal landscape onthe point of scope of revision, framing of charges, discharge, andscope of 482 and there is no dispute over said legal position.As regards to second ruling of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), facts being distinct is of no avail to thecomplainant.15.To sum up, here, essential ingredients of abetment to commitsuicide are patently missing. Out of five accused, four have alreadysucceeded in getting FIR as well as chargesheet quashed againstthem. For said reasons, revisionist succeeds. Hence, following orderis passed : ORDER(I)Criminal Revision Application is allowed.(II)The order dated 01-01-2025 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Beed below Exhibit 27 inSessions Case No.94 of 2022, is hereby quashed and setaside. {11} REVN 30 OF 2025(III)Application Exhibit 27 filed in Sessions Case No.94 of2022 stands allowed. Revision petitioner stands dischargedfrom offence under Sections 306, 323, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.94of 2022 (Crime No.213 of 2021 registered at AmalnerPolice Station, District Beed).(IV)Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposedof. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT