Bombay High Court
Nishit Patel vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 June, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:24054-DB
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2025.06.18
CHITNIS 18:16:18 +0530 wp.3388.2024(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3388 OF 2024
Nishit Patel
Occ: Business, Age 45 years
residing at 301, Raj Laxmi
Residency, 15th Road, Khar West
Mumbai 400 052. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Khar Police Station
2. Nazeem Navroz Tejani
Occupation: Housewife
Age 55 years, residing at
603, 6th Floor, Cresent Building
Above Surmawali Masjid
Near Almeida Park
10th Road, Bandra (West)
Mumbai - 400 050. ...Respondents
Mr. Rahul Moghe a/w Ms. Kalyani Rathod for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. S. Kaushik AP.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, for the Respondent No.2.
P.I. - Sachin Rane, from Bandra Police Station, Mumbai.
N. S. Chitnis 1/24
::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th APRIL 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
–
1. In view of the administrative order passed by the Hon’ble
the Chief Justice dated 20 th September 2024, the aforesaid petition has
been placed before us and is accordingly taken up for hearing.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives
notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Singh, waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing C.R.
No.515 of 2017, registered with the Khar Police Station, Mumbai, qua
N. S. Chitnis 2/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
him, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2),
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. Facts in brief are as under:-
The petitioner is a bussinessman manufacturing electrical
control panels in the name of ‘Elec Mac Corporation’ since 20 years.
It appears that Navroz Tejani (deceased) was running a business of
household articles under the name and style, ‘Tejani Stores’ at Bandra
for more than 50 years. It appears that the petitioner and his family
had good relations with Tejani family i.e. the deceased’s family, till the
registration of the FIR. It appears that the petitioner had advanced
loans to the deceased-Navroz Tejani and his son-Arshad Tejani and had
also executed loan agreements with respect to the same. It further
appears that on 27th October 2015, the petitioner’s wife advanced a
sum of Rs.25 lakhs to Navroz Tejani/Arshad Tejani, by way of loan;
and that this loan was advanced without a written agreement, but,
later was made part of the Agreement dated 17 th March 2017.
N. S. Chitnis 3/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
5. Mr. Moghe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that even if the prosecution case is taken as it stands, no offence as
alleged, is made out qua the petitioner. He submitted that the only
evidence against the petitioner i.e. the suicide note and the statement
of Ranchod Himaram Parmar, does not even remotely make out a case
under any of the provisions, as alleged against the petitioner. Learned
Counsel submitted that the case in hand squarely falls within the
parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1. Mr. Moghe also
placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Subhash
Ramgopal Bharuka Vs State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector
and Others2; Imran s/o. Masood Khan and Another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Another3; Amit s/o. Ashok Naharkar Vs State of
Maharashtra and Another4; Suhas @ Pappu s/o. Sarjerao Kakade and
Another Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another 5; and Ramesh
Someshwarrao Tayde and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and
1 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
2 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2211:(2020) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 410
3 2019 ALL MR(Cri) 2838
4 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4768
5 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1684
N. S. Chitnis 4/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
Another6, in support of his submission for quashing the FIR/charge-
sheet, qua the petitioner.
6. Learned AP.P. submitted that the suicide note and the
statement of Ranchod Himaram Parmar clearly reveals the petitioner’s
complicity in the crime.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also supported
the learned AP.P. He submitted that the suicide note as well as the
statement of Ranchod Parmar, is sufficient to prima facie show that
the petitioner is liable for the offences, for which charge-sheet has
been filed against him.
8. Navroz Tejani committed suicide on 24th July 2017. It
appears that the statement of the deceased’s son-Arshad was recorded
on the very same day i.e. 24th July 2017, when the deceased committed
suicide. At that time of recording of the statement, no suspicion was
disclosed by the deceased’s son-Arshad on anyone to the police. It
6 2016 ALL MR(Cri) 5049
N. S. Chitnis 5/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
appears that the deceased’s family changed their residence on 1 st
September 2017, from Kishan Abode, 11 th Floor, 14th Road, Khar
(West), Mumbai to 705, B-Wing, Widz End, St. Peter’s Church, Hill
Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai, post the deceased’s suicide. It also
appears that on 10th December 2017, the deceased’s wife found a
suicide note written by her husband, whilst unpacking at their new
residence in Bandra (West) i.e. after more than 4 months of the
incident. On reading the suicide note, the respondent No.2-Nazeem
Navroz Tejani (wife of the deceased) lodged an FIR on 22 nd December
2017, as against the persons mentioned in the suicide note by the
deceased. The said FIR was registered vide C.R. No.515 of 2017,
with the Khar Police Station, Mumbai, as against the petitioner and
others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2),
34 of the IPC. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the prosecution
places reliance on the suicide note written by the deceased and the
statement of Ranchod Parmar. Post the registration of the FIR,
investigation commenced and charge-sheet was filed against the
persons named in the suicide note, including the petitioner. We have
N. S. Chitnis 6/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
perused the documets/evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. the
suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Parmar. From a perusal of
the suicide note, it appears that the deceased started writing the suicide
note on 20th July 2017 which continued till 23rd July 2017. In the said
suicide note, the deceased had made allegations against 9 persons,
including the petitioner. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the
allegation against the petitioner in the suicide note, reads thus:-
” 20/7/17
The main culprit for my suicide is-
P. K. Gupta — cheater No. 1,
— Rakesh
Ravi Chakara, ] v.v. expert
Sunil Thadani ] in extortion)
Pawan Darolia
Propwiz India
LiliramAll this above people took away lots of money from me
and cheated me and also threatened me.
If I donot pay them. Any how for the life of my son and
me I settled with them.
They have cheated many other people.
One
No one from my family is responsible for the step
N. S. Chitnis 7/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)I am taking.
All my family member
Pl. forgive me.
One Mr. Jani at Solapur also did not co.operate.
Shanawaz also did not return the money which I was
suppose to give to so many people in bandra.
Nishit Patel was also very harsh in collecting his interest
money, did not cooperate at all.
All my staff at tejani stores have worked very sincerely for
me but with G.S.T. now and building redevelopment it was
difficult for them to do the business.
I was not able to take the pressure though I had some
properiety decession was not taken by me.
V. V. Sorry to end my life this way.”
sign
23/7/17
9. Apart from the aforesaid, the prosecution relies on the
statement of Ranchod Parmar, which was recorded on 28 th January
2018, The said statement is on page 348 of the petition. In the said
statement, Ranchod Parmar, has disclosed, as under:-
[“…तसे च नि नि त पटे ल याच्याकडू मालका े व्याजा े बरीच रक्कम घे तली
होती परं तु पटे ल ज्यावे ळी दुका ावर ये त असत त्यावे ळी वारं वार व्याजाचा दर कमी करण्याची
निव ं ती माझ्या मालका े केली तरीदे खील त्या े व्याजाचा दर कमी केला ाही…”
N. S. Chitnis 8/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
(”Similarly, my boss had borrowed a huge sum of money on interest
from Nishit Patel, however, every time Patel visited the store, my boss
repeatedly requested him to reduce the interest rate, still he did not
reduce the interest rate…)”
“…पी.के. गु प्ता, राके f=osnh, सु ील थडा ी, रवी निचकारा, हा वाझ करमाली,
नि नि त पटे ल व म ोहर जा ी यां ी पै ासाठी वारं वार माझ्या मालकास मा निसक =kl निदला…”
(“…P. K. Gupta, Rakesh Trivedi, Sunil Thadani, Ravi Chakara,
Shanawaz Karmali, Nishit Patel and Manohar Jani mentally tortured
my boss, time and again for money….)”]
Apart from the said evidence relied upon by the
prosecution, no other material was pointed out by the learned APP and
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
10. Before considering the aforesaid evidence qua the
petitioner, it would be apposite to consider the parements to be borne
in mind, whilst considering the plea for quashing of an FIR/charge-
sheet. It is pertinent to mention the parameters laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The relevant paragraph
N. S. Chitnis 9/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
is para 102 of the said judgment. The said paragraph reads thus:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidenceN. S. Chitnis 10/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
N. S. Chitnis 11/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
11. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid parameters, the
question that arises for consideration is whether an offence under
Sections 306 and 506(2), is made out, qua the petitioner, keeping in
mind the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution.
12. At this juncture, it will be necessary to reproduce Sections
306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which read thus:-
‘306. Abetment of suicide.– If any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
First.– Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.– Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.’
N. S. Chitnis 12/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
13. Having perused the charge-sheet in particular, the suicide
note and the statement of Ranchod Parmar relied upon by the
prosecution, to show the petitioner’s complicity and the law in this
regard, we are of the opinion that taking the prosecution case as it
stands, no offence as alleged is disclosed qua the petitioner. We do not
find that the petitioner who had given loan to the deceased by
executing a loan agreement had, in any way the requisite mens rea to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It is pertinent to note that the
act of instigation, in order to constitute an offence under Section 306
of the IPC, is required to be of such an intensity, so as to push the
deceased to such perplexity under which he has no choice, but, to
commit suicide. Such instigation must also be in close proximity to the
act and time of suicide. Thus, in order to satisfy the ingredients of
Section 306 of the IPC, the acccused ought to place the deceased in
such a quandary that the deceased is left with no other option than to
commit suicide. All of this is absent in the facts of this case.
N. S. Chitnis 13/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
14. The Apex Court in para 16 of Mahendra Awase Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh7, observed as under;-
“16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.”
(emphasis supplied).
Thus the Court observed that a mere allegation or
accusation of harrassment made by the deceased prior to his death,
cannot be held as the fulcrum of an offence under Section 306 of IPC.
15. In Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P.8, the appellant
was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that
the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the
deceased “to go and die”. The Apex Court having regard to the facts,
was of the view that the mere words, “to go and die” uttered by the
7 AIR 2025 SC 568
8 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943)
N. S. Chitnis 14/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
accused to the deceased were not prima facie enough to instigate the
deceased therein to commit suicide.
16. Similarly, the Apex Court in paras 13 and 14 of Prakash
and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 9, has observed as
under;
“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to
sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct
or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide,
it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts
of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused,
which must be in close proximity to the commission of
suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement
should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide and should put the victim in such a position that
he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.” (emphasis supplied).
9 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835
N. S. Chitnis 15/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
17. In Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 10,
the Apex Court in para 21, has observed as under;
“21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would
stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the
deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no
option but to commit suicide. Further, as the
extreme action of committing suicide is also on
account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be
divided into two broad categories. First, where the
deceased is having sentimental ties or physical
relations with the accused and the second category
would be where the deceased is having relations
with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the
case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel
or the hot exchange of words may result into
immediate psychological imbalance, consequently
creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in
life and if the person is unable to control sentiments
of expectations, it may give temptations to the
person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is
relation of husband and wife, mother and son,
brother and sister, sister and sister and other
relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by
blood or due to physical relations. In the case of
second category the tie is on account of official
relations, where the expectations would be to
discharge the obligations as provided for such duty
in law and to receive the considerations as provided
in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by
sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official
10 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091N. S. Chitnis 16/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)relationship. The reason being different nature of
conduct to maintain that relationship. The former
category leaves more expectations, whereas in the
latter category, by and large, the expectations and
obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and
regulations.”
(emphasis supplied).
18. The Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana11, observed as follows;
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State
[Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC
560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387], after referring
to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context
of culpability under Section 306 IPC observed as
under : (SCC para 45)“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.”
(emphasis supplied).
11 (2024) 3 SCC 573 : 2024 INSC 149
N. S. Chitnis 17/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
19. The Apex Court in Ude Singh and Others Vs State of
Haryana12, observed as follows:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case
of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only
be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each
case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
12 (2019) 17 SCC 301 : 2019 INSC 810N. S. Chitnis 18/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays
an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-
respect of the victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds
of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each
case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and
the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact
of one’s action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with
differently by different persons; and so far a particular
person’s reaction to any other human’s action is
concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to
estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the
factors related with the question of harassment of aN. S. Chitnis 19/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)girl, many factors are to be considered like age,
personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups,
education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of
eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also
vary for a variety of factors, including those of
background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts
and circumstances.”
(emphasis supplied).
20. In Ramrao S/o Govindrao Dhakane Vs The State of
Maharashtra and Another13, the Aurangabad Bench of this Court,
quashed the FIR, after observing that no offence under Section 306 of
the IPC was disclosed. Paras 10 to 12 of the said judgment reads thus:-
” 10. Taking into consideration the above speech or
recording together with the contents of the FIR and
the statements under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the same would show that
according to Prashant and the informant there was
financial transaction between Prashant and the
applicant. According to Prashant, he has given
Rs.5,50,000/- to the applicant and then applicant
refused to return the same. In the entire material in
the charge-sheet, we are unable to get, when
amount was given and since when it was due for
return. In the video, at one place Prashant says that
he is blaming present applicant for his suicide and
at another place, he says that he is not holding
anybody responsible for the suicide. He also says13 Criminal Application No.3086/2023, decided on 20.09.2024
N. S. Chitnis 20/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)that as he was in trouble, his mental condition was
not proper and therefore, he is taking the extreme
step and nobody is pressuring him. It is his mistake
which he is admitting. Neither informant nor
Prashant is saying as to why they have not adopted
the legal procedure for recovery of the amount.
Prashant could have lodged the FIR if he felt that
he has been cheated or even he could have filed
civil suit for the recovery.
11. The documents produced by the applicant-
accused cannot be considered, but still it appears
that there was a promissory note executed by the
applicant in favour of Prashant, which was to the
tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and it was executed on 10 th
February 2021. Applicant had promised to repay
that amount on or before 9th July 2021. The
applicant wants to rely on rough notes/entries
showing that from 11th February 2021 till 9th July
2021 he made repayment, almost on daily basis and
it has the signature of Prashant. If according to the
deceased, the applicant had not abided by the terms
of promissory note, then taking into consideration
the said document, Prashant could have lodged the
suit.
12. Neither the suicide note/video recording nor
the FIR and the statements of witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
discloses that between 22nd March 2022 to 30th
March 2022, applicant had met Prashant and at
that time there were such talks between them
which amounted to instigation/abetment to the
deceased to commit suicide. Even if we take the
statement in the FIR as it is, that Prashant hadN. S. Chitnis 21/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)disclosed to the informant that he had met
applicant around 7.00 a.m. on 22nd March 2022,
then what applicant had communicated to him, was
that he promised to pay the amount within four
days, though it was stated that he spoke arrogantly
at that time. In those utterings, it cannot be spelt
out that the applicant was intending that Prashant
should go and commit suicide. It is unfortunate
that a young boy of 21 years had committed suicide
but the facts and situation around are not attracting
the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code. Case is made out for exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the FIR and the entire
proceedings.”
21. Thus, it is clear from the judgements of the Apex Court
and this Court that the ingredients of Section 107 are sine qua non for
constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC. Courts have
consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of
the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to
suicide.
22. In the present case, taking the FIR and the contents of the
suicide note as well as the statement of Ranchod Parmar, as it stands,
it is not possible from any angle to conclude that the petitioner
N. S. Chitnis 22/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment
of the amount borrowed by him or that the petitioner used abusive
language or intimidated him.
23. We also do not find any close proximity between the date
of suicide note, which was allegedly written from 20 th July 2017 till
23rd July 2017. Infact, the statement of Ranchod Parmar, does not
reveal when the petitioner had come to the shop and demanded
money. Nor, does the suicide note reveal any proximity between the
petitioner’s act and the deceased committing suicide. The same is
completely amiss. Thus, by no strech of imagination, can the act of
the petitioner be said to constitute an act of instigation towards the
deceased compelling him to commit suicide.
24. Thus, keeping in mind the provisions of the IPC, the
judgments of the Apex Court and this Court and taking the case as it
stands, we are of the opinion that, no offence either under Sections
306 or 506(2) of the IPC, is disclosed qua the petitioner. Thus, the
N. S. Chitnis 23/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::
wp.3388.2024(J)
petition ought to succeed. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed;
ii) The FIR bearing C.R. No.515 of 2017, registered with the
Khar Police Station, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside and
consequently the charge-sheet filed qua the petitioner, is also
quashed and set-aside.
25. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Petition is
accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
judgment.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 24/24
::: Uploaded on – 18/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/06/2025 00:07:01 :::