Bombay High Court
Rambahadur Singh S/O Gendalal Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Po/ Ps, ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:7980-DB
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2024
Raju Nathauli
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, PS Kalmeshwar, Nagpur & Anr.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2024
Rambahadur Singh S/o. Gendalal Singh
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, PS Kalmeshwar, Nagpur & Anr.
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. A.M. Sudame, Counsel with Mr. A.A. Potnis, Counsel for the
Petitioners in both petitions.
Ms. S.S. Jachak, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. R.L. Kadu, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON : 14th AUGUST, 2025.
Heard Mr. A.M. Sudame, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Ms. S.S. Jachak, learned A.P.P. for respondent
No.1/State, and Mr. R.L. Kadu, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. By two different petitions, the petitioners are
seeking to quash First Information Report registered against
them vide Crime No.387/2024 for the offence under Section
306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their
driver has committed suicide and they are blamed of abetting
it.
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 2/7
3. The petitioners are involved in the transport
business and provide trucks for transportation. The deceased
was serving as driver in the said business. According to the
petitioners, the deceased was addicted to liquor and was
responsible for one accident. He has allegedly, in the month of
May, 2024, set on fire a truck bearing registration
No.DL01LB6164, owned by the petitioners. The petitioners
have allegedly lodged the first information report of the
incident. Later on, the deceased committed suicide. This story
is, however, not responsible for committing suicide.
4. The grievance of the deceased was that he was not
paid monthly salary in full. His children were starving for food.
He blamed the petitioners for such status and was constrained
to take extreme step to end his life. Thus the case appears to be
of inability of the deceased to sustain the financial crisis.
5. It is unfortunate that a precious life has lost. The
question, however, is whether the petitioners have abetted the
offence. Neither in the First Information Report nor in the
statement of the wife of deceased and even in the suicide note,
we find that there is any allegation that would indicate that
while not paying salary in time or in paying salary in part,
intention of the petitioners was to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal [(2010 1
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 3/7
SCC 707], wherein after taking stock of earlier judgments, the
Supreme Court reiterated that while acts of cruelty, including
physical and mental harassment, can establish liability under
Section 498A of the IPC, there must be clear and direct or
proximate evidence demonstrating that the accused actively
instigated or facilitated the victim's suicide to hold them liable
under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide.
7. In the case of Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that for an act to constitute abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement, instigation or aid that creates a situation, where the
deceased perceives no other option but to commit suicide. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that merely humiliating or
harassing the deceased, without evidence of active instigation
or a clear intention to induce the act, does not suffice to
establish abetment.
8. Despite such position of law, we come across various
cases where merely on the ground of harassment or where the
deceased is unable to sustain the pressure, commits suicide and
charge-sheet is filed against the persons like the petitioners.
9. In context with above, we enquired with the learned
A.P.P as to why was charge-sheet filed in the present case to
which the learned A.P.P. invited our attention to the statement
of the wife of deceased. She stated that her husband was
employed for a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, but the
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 4/7
petitioners never paid entire salary. They used to pay amount
ranging from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month and never
received more than Rs.6,000/- per month. When enquired by
the wife, he stated that the petitioners are not paying him the
monthly salary and therefore he was worried as to how he will
feed his children and maintain the family. The learned A.P.P.
further submits that the suicide note itself indicates that the
children of deceased were starving, which the petitioners could
not endure. This is the reason why, according to learned A.P.P,
charge-sheet was filed.
10. We find these submissions to be an attempt to some
how justify filing charge-sheet. When we enquired as to why
was charge-sheet filed, the obvious reason was whether the
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are attracted. The learned
A.P.P., instead of focusing on ingredients of Section 306 of IPC,
has pointed out the sufferings of the deceased that provoked
him to commit suicide. What was expected, was a fair
statement.
11. Here we would invite the attention of the learned
A.P.P. to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and another [(1999) 7
SCC 467] to remind her of the duties of the Public Prosecutor.
The Supreme Court on this point observed as under:
"13. From the scheme of the Code the legislative
intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a
Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone other
than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the
State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 5/7
the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court. A Public
Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the
case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the
other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case.
The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while
conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not
only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to
the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any
legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor
should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the
duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and
make it available to the accused. Even if the defence
counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added
responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it
comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed
free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on
bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case
to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament
applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to
the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor."
Thus what is expected is fairness in the prosecution. The
fairness has to be not only to the Court and to the investigating
agency but also to the accused. If an accused is entitled to any
legitimate benefit, the Public Prosecutor should not
scuttle/conceal it, rather it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor
to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. The
Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the
case in the conviction irrespective of the true facts involved in
the case.
12. In the present case, the Investigating Officer and all
concerned were well aware of the fact that the case as reported
by the respondent No.2, even if accepted on the face value, the
ingredients of abetment to suicide were not attracted. The
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 6/7
approach of the learned A.P.P. was to justify filing
charge-sheet, whether or not the offence is made out. The
Public Prosecutors are not supposed to be mouthpiece of the
Investigating Officer. We have, however, cited the above
judgment with hope and expectation that henceforth the Public
Prosecutors shall show fair approach in the proceedings.
13. Coming back to the merits of the case, as stated
earlier, even if the FIR, suicide note and the statement of the
wife of deceased is accepted to be true, what comes to fore is
an unfortunate incident of someone committing suicide for his
inability to face the challenges in the life. There is nothing on
record that would indicate that the petitioners had any
intention to create an atmosphere so that the deceased will be
left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Thus the
ingredients of abetment are absent. The petitioners' business
policy of making part payment of salary may not be befitting
ethical standards, but then we are not aware as to why was
entire salary not paid to the deceased. The fact, however,
remains that they never intended to see that deceased will put
an end to his life. In the circumstances, the legal
representatives of the deceased may be entitled for
compensation but cannot attribute culpability to the petitioners.
14. That being so, continuation of prosecution against
the petitioners will only amount to abuse of process of law. This
is, therefore, a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
917.Cr.WP.691.2024 & Anr..odt 7/7
15. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. First
Information Report No.387/2024 dated 26/05/2024,
registered with Police Station Kalmeshwar, Nagpur, for the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
the IPC, is quashed and set aside. In sequel, the Charge-sheet
No.56/2025 dated 06/03/2025, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kalmeshwar, Nagpur, is quashed and set
aside.
(M. M. NERLIKAR, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
Vijaykumar
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 13:55:39
