High Court

1 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPURCRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1167 OF 20251.Vijay Sitaram Zoting,Age 55 years, Occ: Daily wages,2.Vinod Gangaram Rajurkar, Age 50 years, Occ. Daily wages,Both R/o Pandharkawada, Taluka-Kelapur, Yavatmal Maharashtra.APPLICANTS Versus1.State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, PoliceStation Pandharkawada, DistrictYavatmal, Maharashtra.2.Vaishali Mangesh Wasekar, R/o Ranapratap Ward,Pandharkawada, Tal.- Kelapur,Dist. Yavatmal, Maharashtra.NON-APPLICANTS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.M. Lodha, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.DATED: 30th MARCH, 2026.ORAL JUDGMENT :- 2 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt1.Heard.2.ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learnedCounsel for the Applicants and learned APP for theNon-applicant No.1/State.3.None appears for the Non-applicant No.2 thoughservice of notice is there.4.The present Application is preferred by theApplicants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SurakshaSanhita, 2023 for quashing the First Information Report inconnection with Crime No.622/2025 registered with PoliceStation Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal for the offencepunishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the consequent proceedingarising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No. 31/2025pending before the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Kelapur.5.Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal ofthe present Application are as under: 3 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt5(i).The crime came to be registered on the basis of areport lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 wife of the deceasedon an allegation that she was residing alongwith her in-laws,two children and her husband deceased Mangesh KisanWasekar. Her husband was dealing with work as CivilContractor. The Applicants were known to him and theyfrequently used to come at their house and there was a moneytransaction between the deceased and the present Applicants.The present Applicants have obtained Rs. 10-12 Lakhs from himand were not returned the same and whenever the deceasedused to demand the money from them, they used to say thatthey would not return the money and used to quarrel with him.On that count, the deceased has committed suicide by hanginghimself in the complex of Mangesh Shedam in Athawadi Bazar.On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crimeagainst the present Applicants.5(ii).After registration of the crime, during investigationthe Investigating Officer has seized the mobile phone of thedeceased as well as recorded various statements of witnesses.During the examination of mobile phone of the deceased one 4 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtvideo clip was found by the Investigating Agency whichdiscloses the communication by the deceased showing that itwas the present Applicants who have not repaid his amount andsame action to be taken against them. On the basis of the saidinvestigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against thepresent Applicants. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, whosubmitted that as far as the monetary transaction is concernedexcept the bare statement of the deceased there is no materialto connect the present Applicants to show that they haveobtained the money. The mobile phone of one of the Applicantsi.e. the Applicant No.1 was seized during investigation and oninspection of the said mobile phone, nothing was found by theinvestigating agency showing that there was any online moneytransaction between the present Applicant No.1 and thedeceased. He invited my attention towards the mobileverification panchnama of the Applicant No.1, wherein it isspecifically mentioned that there was no such transactionrevealed from the inspection of the mobile phone. Thus, hesubmitted that, initially the Marg Report was filed. The 5 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtstatement of the wife was recorded, wherein she has not raisedany suspicion against anybody and thereafter on 16.07.2025 theFIR came to be lodged i.e. after approximately 45 days againstthe present Applicants which is afterthought. He submitted that,even accepting the allegations as it is no offence is made outagainst the present Applicants as there is no proximity or nexusbetween the act, which is alleged to be committed by thepresent Applicants and the committal of the suicide by thedeceased. He submitted that, the alleged incident has takenplace on 02.06.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on16.07.2025. The statements of witnesses also not disclose thatthere was any monetary transaction between the deceased andthe present Applicants. The statements of the accounts arecollected during the investigation and he submitted that, thestatements of the accounts though showing some transactionsbetween them but which is not sufficient to infer that there wasan abetment at the hands of the present Applicants as no exactact or positive act is narrated by any of the witnesses to attractthe offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC (Section 108 ofBNS). In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. 6 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt7.Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the saidcontentions and submitted that, considering that there was amoney transaction between the present Applicants and thedeceased, there was an abetment at the hands of the presentApplicants as they have not repaid the amount and there wasfinancial constrains on the deceased, and therefore, thedeceased has committed suicide. Thus, the act of the presentApplicants not paying the amount which is obtained by them ashand loan, itself is sufficient to commit suicide by the deceased,and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. In view ofthat, the Application deserves to be rejected.8.On hearing both the sides and on perusal of theentire investigation papers it reveals that, there was a monetarytransaction between the Applicants and the deceased. It isfurther apparent that, the Applicants allegedly have obtainedsome amount from the deceased and it was not repaid and thatwas the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. It issubmitted by the learned APP that, there was a financialconstrains on the said deceased and due to the said transactionsthere was no alternative before the deceased to commit suicide. 7 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtOn perusal of the recitals of the FIR and the statement of thewife of the deceased as well as various statements of witnessesnowhere it reveals that as due to the non-repayment of theamount by the present Applicants there was a financialconstrains on the deceased and there was no alternative beforethe deceased but to commit suicide, and therefore, the deceasedhas committed suicide. The prosecution has relied upon one clipwhich was recorded in the mobile phone of the deceased. Onperusal of the translation of the said clip it reveals that it wasthe clip recorded wherein the deceased was found saying “vTtq ysikBoq ikBoq ek;s larqyu [kjkc dsys vTtq HkkbZ ” rlsp R;kuarj nqljh OghMhvks Dyhi thph MhVsYlikfgyh vlrk video_20250602_092241,Time - 02/06/25, 9:23am, size- 43.50 MB,1080x1920,30 FPS 00:20, Parameters vivo Y56 5G, Path - internal storage/DCIM/Camera/video-20250602-092241.mp4 vls vkBGqu vkys- rlsp R;ke/khy OghMhvks Dyhic?khryh os ,sdyh vlrk R;ke/;s e`rd gk Lorkgk ejkBhr oDrO; djhr vkgs dh ^^ ;kpsoj dkjokbZdjk rqEgh fotq >ksVhax] fouksn jktqjdj mQZ MsOghM ;kapsoj dkjokbZ djk gs ek>s 10 yk[kkps ojpsiSls [kkmu vkgs- eyk iSls fnys ukgh eys ;s;u Qloqu Vkdys**9.Thus, this recording also nowhere shows that therewas a financial constrains on the deceased, and therefore, thedeceased has committed suicide. Thus, as far as the offence ofthe abetment is concerned, from the statements of thewitnesses, admittedly, nothing reveals to show that some act 8 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtwas committed by the present Applicants, and therefore, thedeceased has committed suicide. 10.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, itis necessary to see what are the considerations for consideringthe application for quashing of the FIR. As far as the law inregard to the offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned,question will remain whether repayment of money from thepresent Applicants, which is sufficient reason for the deceasedto commit suicide. 11.Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023) of IPC defines abetment of suicide, which readsthus: “306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide,whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall bepunished with imprisonment of either description for aterm which may extend to ten years, and shall also beliable to fine. Classification of offence. - The offence under this section iscognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable byCourt of Session.”12. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which readsthus: 9 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt“107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of athing, who- First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; orSecondly. - Engages with one or more other person orpersons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if anact or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of thatconspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; orThirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he isbound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, orattempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said toinstigate the doing of that thing. IllustrationA, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Courtof Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and alsothat C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, andthereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here Babets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time ofthe commission of an act, does anything in order tofacilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitatesthe commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of thatact.”13. Section 108 of IPC reads thus:“108. Abettor.- A person abets an offence, who abets eitherthe commission of an offence, or the commission of an actwhich would be an offence, if committed by a personcapable by law of committing an offence with the sameintention or knowledge as that of the abettor.Explanation 1. The abetment of the illegal omission of anact may amount to an offence although the abettor may nothimself be bound to do that act.Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it isnot necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or 10 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtthat the effect requisite to constitute the offence should becaused.Illustrations(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guiltyof abetting B to commit murder.(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of theinstigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guiltyof instigating B to commit murder.Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abettedshould be capable by law of committing an offence, or thathe should have the same guilty intention or knowledge asthat of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.Illustrations (a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic tocommit an act which would be an offence, if committed bya person capable by law of committing an offence, andhaving the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act becommitted or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. (b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, Instigates B, achild under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z'sdeath. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act inthe absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, thoughB was not capable by law of committing an offence, A isliable to be punished in the same. Manner as if B had beencapable by law of committing an offence, and hadcommitted murder, and he is therefore subject to thepunishment of death.(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dweiling-house, B, inconsequence of the unsoundness of his mind, beingincapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he isdoing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to thehouse in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed nooffence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fireto a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment,provided for that offence.(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigatesB to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. Ainduces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takesthe property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing itto be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, doesnot take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft.But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the samepunishment as if B had committed theft. 11 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtExplanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being anoffence, the abetment of such an abetment is also asoffence.Illustration A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordinglyinstigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence inconsequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished forhis offence with the punishment for murder; and, as Ainstigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to thesame punishment. Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of theoffence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor shouldconcert the offence with the person who commits it. It issufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance ofwhich the offence is committed.Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that Ashall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to Cmentioning that a third person is to administer the poison,but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure thepoison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose ofits being used in the manner explained. A administers thepoison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C havenot conspired together, yet C' has been engaged in theconspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. Chas therefore committed the offence defined in this sectionand is liable to the punishment for murder.”14. Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicideand states that whoever abets the commission of suicide ofanother person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment ofeither description for a term not exceeding ten years and shallalso be liable to fine. 12 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt15.The said Section penalizes abetment of commissionof suicide. To charge someone under this Section, theprosecution must prove that the accused played a role in thesuicide. Specifically, the accused actions must align with one ofthe three criteria detailed in Section 107 of IPC. This means theaccused either encouraged the individual to take their life,conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide. 16. A question arises as to when is a person said to haveinstigated another. The word “instigate” means to goad or urgeforward provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act” which theperson otherwise would not have done.17. It is well settled that in order to attract the offenceof abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge orintention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge andintention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in thiscase, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order toconstitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to doculpable act. 13 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt18. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented bythe Inspector of Police & Anr., SLP [Cri] Diary No. 39981/2022,decided on 30.01.2024, relied by learned Counsel for theApplicants, by referring the various earlier decisions, theHon'ble Apex Court held that the physical relationship over aconsiderable period of time was out of mutual love between theappellant and the deceased and not based on the promise ofmarriage. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court hasconsidered its earlier decision in the case of Kamlakar Vs. Stateof Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011, decided on12.10.2023 and explained ingredients of Section 306 of IPC andheld, as under:"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission ofsuicide. To charge someone under this Section, theprosecution must prove that the accused played a role inthe suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must alignwith one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC.This means the accused either encouraged the individualto take their life, conspired with others to ensure theperson committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed toact) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR2001 SC 383, this Court has analysed different meaningsof "Instigation". The relevant para of the said Judgment isreproduced herein:“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 wordsmust be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation 14 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtmust necessarily and specifically be suggestive of theconsequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite theconsequence must be capable of being spelt out. Thepresent one is not a case where the accused had by his actsor omission or by a continued course of conduct createdsuch circumstances that the deceased was left with noother option except to commit suicide in which case aninstigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in thefit of anger or emotion without intending the consequencesto actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated bythis Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, asunder:"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. ofNCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)367)] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word"instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that thereshould be intention to provoke, incite or encourage thedoing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidabilitypattern is different from the others. Each person has hisown idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it isimpossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealingwith such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basisof its own facts and circumstances. 44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating aperson or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.Without a positive act on the part of the accused toinstigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot besustained.45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of thecases decided by this Court are clear that in order toconvict a person under Section 306 IPC there, has to be aclear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires anactive act or direct act which led the deceased to commitsuicide seeing no option and this act must have beenintended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out inorder to bring a case under Section 106 IPC were alsodiscussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view thatbefore holding an accused guilty of an offence under 15 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtSection 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine thefacts and circumstances of the case and also assess theevidence adduced before it in order to find out whether thecruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had leftthe victim with no other alternative but to put an end toher life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases ofalleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of director indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.Merely on the allegation of harassment without there beingany positive action proximate to the time of occurrence onthe part of the accused which led or compelled the personto commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPCis not sustainable.13. In order to bring a case within the purview ofSection 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in thecommission of the said offence, the person who is said tohave abetted the commission of suicide must have playedan active role by an act of instigation or by doing certainact to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, theact of abetment by the person charged with the saidoffence must be proved and established by the prosecutionbefore he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of theinstant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, thereseems to be no proximate link between the marital discordbetween the deceased and the appellant and hersubsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has notcommitted any positive or direct act to instigate or aid inthe commission of suicide by the deceased.”19. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. Stateof M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon’ble Apex Court extensivelydealt with concept of ‘abetment’ in the context of the offencepunishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In thatcase, the allegation against the accused/appellant therein wasthat he had abetted the commission of suicide of his sister'shusband one Chander Bhushan. The facts reveals that there 16 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtwere matrimonial disputes between sister of theappellant/accused and her husband and in connection with thesaid disputes, the appellant had allegedly threatened andabused Chander Bhushan. Chander Bhushan committed suicideand the suicide was attributed by the prosecution to the quarrelthat had taken place between the appellant and the saidChander Bhushan, a day prior. It was alleged that the appellanthad used abusive language against said Chander Bhushan andhad told him “to go and die”. The appellant, who had beenchargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 306 ofthe Indian Penal Code, filed a Petition under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedingsagainst him, but his Petition was dismissed by the High Court.While allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia,observed as follows:“Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellantdid tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does notconstitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drasticor unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence ofmens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant ofinstigation.” 17 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt20. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact withthe acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in themind of the deceased and which draw him to suicide will not besufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetalimpulse or ill-fated thoughts of the suicide, howeverunfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot fray the fabric of theprovision contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Inorder to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 ofthe Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with anintention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as aresult of that abetment is required. The intention of the accusedto aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicideis a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian PenalCode. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh KumarVs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383 referred inPrabhu Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of PoliceAnr., (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant,in para No.20 has examined different meaning of ‘instigation’, 18 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtwhich reads as, ‘instigation’ is to goad, urge forward, provoke,incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement ofinstigation though it is not necessary that actual words must beused to that effect or what constitutes instigation mustnecessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must becapable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case wherethe accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued courseof conduct created such circumstances that the deceased wasleft with no other option except to commit suicide in which casean instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fitof anger or emotion without intending the consequences toactually follow cannot be said to be ‘instigation’.22. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and108 of the Indian Penal Code, shows the requirement is apositive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid incommitting suicide and in the absence of the same, theconviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clearintention to commit the offence for being held liable underSection 306 of Indian Penal Code. 19 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt23. After going through the catena of decisions, itreveals that the test that the Court should adopt in these typesof cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of thematerials on record whether there is anything to indicate evenprima facie that the accused intended the consequences of theact, i.e., suicide. To attract the provisions what is to be shown isthat the accused have actually instigated or aided in the victimact of committing suicide. There must be direct or indirectincitement to the commission of suicide and the accused mustbe shown to have played an active role by an act of instigationor by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.24.Applying the above principles to the facts of thepresent case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals thatthere was a money transaction between the deceased and thepresent Applicants. As per the allegations, the presentApplicants were not repaying the amount, and therefore, thedeceased has committed suicide. Thus, there is nothing onrecord to show that, due to some act of the present Applicants,the deceased constrains or compels to commit suicide. On thecontrary, it is apparent that, one video recording was found in 20 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odtthe mobile phone of the deceased which only shows that thepresent Applicants are not repaying the money, and therefore,some action is to be taken against them. As far as the allegationregarding that the present Applicants were saying that they willnot repay the amount, which is not substantiated by anystatement or any material. Thus, as far as the abetment at thehands of the present Applicants are concerned, which is notsubstantiated by any material to show that, there was noalternative before the deceased to commit suicide due to the actof the present Applicants. 25. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108 and 306 of IPCand applying it to the undisputed facts of the present caseindicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the casein hand. Thus, the material appears to be insufficient orsubjecting the Applicants to trial. The investigation papersnowhere reveals that there was any positive act on the part ofthe present Applicants and due to which the deceased hascommitted suicide. In view of that, the Application deserves tobe allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. 21 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt O R D E Ri.Criminal Application is allowed.ii.The First Information Report in connection withCrime No. 622/2025 registered with Police StationPandharkawada, District Yavatmal for the offencepunishable under Sections 108 read with Section3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and theconsequent proceeding arising out of the samebearing Sessions Case No. 31/2025 pending beforethe Adhoc Sessions Judge, Kelapur, are herebyquashed and set aside to the extent of the presentApplicants.26.Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)S.D.Bhimte