[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mah. State Handlooms Corporation Ltd. ... vs Dy. Regional Director, Employees State ... on 22 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14833-DB
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1198 OF 2025
Swati D/o Himmat Anbhore,
Aged about 36 Years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. At - Nagoli,
Taluka Murtijapur,
District Akola. .... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, Through
Police Station Officer, Balapur
Police Station, Balapur,
District Akola.
2. Waman s/o Ramrao Tambare,
Aged 65 Years, Occupation : Private,
R/o At Vivara, Taluka - Patur,
District Akola. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Nihalsingh Rathod, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
3. Present application is preferred by the applicant for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.632/2024 registered with Police Station, Balapur,
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5),
108, 85 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and the
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions
Case No.84/2025.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the
application are as under:
One Waman Ramrao Tambre has lodged a report at
Balapur Police Station, District Akola, alleging that the deceased
Uma Amol Telgote was his daughter. Her marriage performed
with the co-accused Amol prior to 15 years and she is having two
children from the said wedlock. As per the allegations, deceased
was treated well for some days after marriage and thereafter,
she was ill-treated by all the family members on the count that
she is not good looking and also demanding money from her. It
is further alleged that co-accused Amol was having illicit relations
with the present applicant and therefore, he insisting the
deceased to give him divorce. As far as the present applicant is
concerned, against whom it is alleged that she was insisting the
deceased to give the divorce to the co-accused Amol. On the
basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against
the present applicant and the other co-accused.
5. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has
drawn the spot panchnama and various statements of the
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet against the present applicant and other co-accused.
6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rathod for the applicant,
who submitted that as far as the illicit relations are concerned,
there is no material to show that there was any relationship
between the co-accused Amol and the present applicant. Only
because she got acquaintance with the present applicant as
being she is divorcee. She has registered the profile on a
matrimonial website and co-accused Amol has also registered
himself on the said matrimonial website and shown that he is
divorcee. They have communicated as they both have responded
to each other's profiles. There is no other reason for them to
have acquaintance to each other. As far as the illicit relations
between him and the co-accused Amol is concerned, a baseless
allegation levelled against the present applicant. Even the
present applicant was not aware that he is divorcee or not. Only
because he has mentioned on the matrimonial website that he is
a divorcee, therefore, she has communicated with him. It is
submitted that even accepting that there was an illicit
relationship, she may be a cause for the deceased's suicide, but
it is not sufficient to show that she has abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
on Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine 1725.
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that at
the time of the quashing of the First Information Report what
requires to be seen is whether there was requisite mens rea and
obviously it is a matter of evidence. A strong suspicion is also
sufficient to proceed against the applicant. He submitted that
overall material shows that the applicant created certain
circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
The WhatsApp communication between the present applicant and
the co-accused and the statement of the minor witnesses, who
are children of the deceased shows the involvement of the
present applicant in the alleged offence. At this stage, the Court
is required to evaluate the material documents on record with a
view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their
face value disclose existence of ingredients or not. Thus, at this
stage, the material collected during investigation is sufficient to
proceed against the present applicant and therefore, the
application deserves to be rejected.
8. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are considerations as far as the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
9. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of
suicide, which reads 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.
Classification of offence. - The offence under this
section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable
and triable by Court of Session.
10. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing,
which reads thus:
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.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a
Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that
fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A
that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act.
11. Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 46 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) reads thus:
108. Abettor.--
A person abets an offence, who abets either the
commission of an offence, or the commission of an
act which would be an offence, if committed by a
person capable by law of committing an offence
with the same intention or knowledge as that of
the abettor.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
Explanation 1.-- The abetment of the illegal
omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to
do that act.
Explanation 2.-- To constitute the offence of
abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to
constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so.
A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of
the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the
wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit
murder.
Explanation 3.-- It is not necessary that the
person abetted should be capable by law of
committing an offence, or that he should have the
same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the
abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a
lunatic to commit an act which would be an
offence, if committed by a person capable by law
of committing an offence, and having the same
intention as A. Here A, whether the act be
committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z,
instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to
do an act which causes Z's death. B, in
consequence of the abetment, does the act in the
absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here,
though B was not capable by law of committing
an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same
manner as if B had been capable by law of
committing an offence, and had committed
murder, and he is therefore subject to the
punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house,
B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his
mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of
the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or
contrary to law, sets fire to the house in
consequence of A's instigation. B has committed
no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence
of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to
the punishment, provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed,
instigates B to take property belonging to Z out
of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the
property belongs to A. B takes the property out
of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be
A's property. B, acting under this misconception,
does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not
commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft,
and is liable to the same punishment as if B had
committed theft.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
Explanation 4.-- The abetment of an offence
being an offence, the abetment of such an
abetment is also as offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z.
accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and
commits that offence in consequence of B's
instigation. B is liable to be punished for his
offence with the punishment for murder; and, as
A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also
liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.-- It is not necessary to the
commission of the offence of abetment by
conspiracy that the abettor should concert the
offence with the person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is
agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then
explains the plan to C mentioning that a third
person is to administer the poison, but without
mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the
poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the
purpose of its being used in the manner
explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
consequence. Here, though A and C have not
conspired together, yet C has been engaged in
the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been
murdered. C has therefore committed the offence
defined in this section and is liable to the
punishment for murder.
12. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about
abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the
commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
The said Sections penalizes abetment of commission of
suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution
must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide.
Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the
three criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take
their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed
suicide.
13. A question arises as to when is a person said to have
instigated another. The word "instigate" means to goad or urge
forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act" which the
person otherwise would not have done.
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
14. It is well settled that in order to amount to abetment,
there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there
cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must
relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act
of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute
abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.
15. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police and anr SLP [Cri] Diary No.
39981/2022, decided on 30.01.2024, relied by learned
counsel for the applicant, by referring the various earlier
decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the physical
relationship over a considerable period of time was out of mutual
love between the appellant and the deceased and not based on
the promise of marriage. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Kamlakar
vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011,
decided on 12.10.2023 and explained ingredients of Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code and held, as under:
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of
commission of suicide. To charge someone under
this Section, the prosecution must prove that the
accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically,
the accused's actions must align with one of the
three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
means the accused either encouraged the
individual to take their life, conspired with others
to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted
in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted
in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of
Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this
Court has analysed different meanings of
"instigation". The relevant para of the said
judgment is reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".
To satisfy the requirement of instigation
though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were
elucidated by this Court in M.Mohan vs. State,
AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT 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 there
should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
Each person's suicidability pattern is
different from the others. Each person has
his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court are
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide."
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be
meted out in order to bring a case under Section
106 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal
alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC
512, in the following paragraphs:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken
the view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,
the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it
in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. 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
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. 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."
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of
the instant case and the law regarding Section
306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link
between the marital discord between the
deceased and the appellant and her subsequent
death by burning herself. The appellant has not
committed any positive or direct act to instigate
or aid in the commission of suicide by the
deceased."
16. In the light of above said principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provisions
what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated
or aided to the victim in committing suicide. There must be
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
direct or indirect incitement to the commission of suicide and the
accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide.
17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that
the allegation against the present applicant is that she was
having illicit relations with the co-accused Amol. As far as the
nature of the relationship between the present applicant and the
co-accused is concerned, except the statements of the children
and the parents of the deceased, there is no other material
collected during the investigation. Admittedly, the death of the
deceased is due to hanging. Thus, the death admittedly is not a
natural death. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer
has collected the screenshot of the matrimonial website which
shows that the present applicant has registered herself on the
matrimonial website by disclosing that she is divorcee and her
profile was uploaded. As far as the co-accused Amol is
concerned, though he is not a divorcee, he has uploaded his
profile as divorcee on the said matrimonial website and
communicated with the present applicant. Even if the WhatsApp
chat is taken into consideration, it nowhere shows that there was
any illicit relationship between the deceased and the present
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
applicant, as nothing reflected from the said WhatsApp chat.
Thus, even accepting the said communication as it is, and even
accepting the facts that there was any relationship between the
present applicant and the co-accused, there is nothing on record
to show that she has in any manner abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. At the most, she can be cause for the deceased
to commit suicide, but as far as the abetment at the hands of the
present applicant is concerned, the material collected during
investigation falls short to say that she has abetted the deceased
to commit suicide.
18. The crucial word in Section 306 IPC is 'abets'.
'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per Section 107
IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he
instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with
one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission
doing of that thing. There are two explanations to Section 107.
As per Explanation 1, even if a person by way of wilful
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is
otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or
attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 clarifies that
whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said
to aid the doing of that act.
19. By referring the decision of Ramesh Kumar V. State
of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that " 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke,
incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of
'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used
to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the
accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of
conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no
other option except to commit suicide, then 'instigation' may be
inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to
be 'instigation'."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court further refers the judgment of
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed that to constitute
'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by
'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court summed up the
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
constituents of 'abetment' as under and laid down the
constituents as follows:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may
even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful
omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward
more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in
the manner noted above.
21. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, there is
nothing on record to show that there were any illicit relations
between the applicant and the co-accused and there is any
positive act on her part to abet the deceased to commit suicide.
22. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108, and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code and applying it to the undisputed facts of the
present case indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted
to the case in hand. The material appears to be insufficient for
subjecting the applicant to trial. On the basis of the nature of the
evidence on record, it cannot be said that the material is
sufficient for the prosecution to establish the charge against the
applicant. In such circumstances, subjecting the applicant to
apl.1198.2025.judgment.odt
trial on the basis of the above said evidence would not only be a
mere formality but also abuse of the process of law.
23. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to
be allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection
with Crime No.632/2024 registered with Police Station,
Balapur, District Akola for the offence punishable
under Sections 3(5), 108, 85 and 352 of the Bharatiya
Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and the consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case
No.84/2025, is hereby quashed and set aside to the
extent of the present applicant Swati D/o Himmat
Anbhore.
The application is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/12/2025 15:20:50
