Bombay High Court
Mrs Prajakta Nilesh Tikle vs State Of Maharashtra Thr P S Badnera And ... on 30 July, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:7444-DB
Judgment apl674.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] No. 674 OF 2025.
Mrs. Prajakta Nilesh Tikle,
Aged about 46 years, Occupation - Advocate,
resident of 53, 54, Pragati Colony,
S.B.I. Society, Yavatmal - 445001. ... APPLICANT.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S. Badnera,
District Nagpur Railway.
2.Shri Shashikant Rajeshwar Bhat,
resident of Jayhind Chowk,
Behind Ram Mandir, Yavatmal. ... NON-APPLICANT.
---------------------------------
Mr. P.M. Pande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1.
None for Non-applicant No.2 - Served.
----------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ
DATE : JULY 30, 2025.
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.M. Nerlikar, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and by
consent of learned Counsel present for the parties, the matter is taken
up for final disposal.
2. This Criminal Application is filed by the applicant who is
one of the accused for quashing First Information Report
No.33/2025 dated 24.03.2025, registered with Badnera Police
Station, Nagpur Railway for offences punishable under Sections 108
and 3[5] of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short).
3. The said first information report is lodged by the non-
applicant no.2 against 34 persons alleging that the deceased - Santosh
Bhaskarrao Gore, who was working as an Assistant Professor with
Bapuji Ane Mahila Vidyalaya, Yavatmal since last 8 years, has
committed suicide by laying down on railway track infront of a
moving train at Dhamangaon Railway Station. During investigation,
a suicide note was seized and in the said suicide note, it was
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
mentioned that due to mental harassment given by 34 persons, the
deceased is committing suicide.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that
similarly circumstanced accused person in the same crime had
approached this Court by filing Criminal Application Nos. 338, 652,
450 and 639 of 2025, praying to quash the first information report. It
is further submitted that this Court by its judgment and order dated
29.04.2025 in Criminal Application No.338/2025, judgment and
order dated 18.07.2025 in Criminal Application No.652/2025 and
judgment and order dated 22.07.2025 in Criminal Application
Nos.450 and 639 of 2025, was pleased to quash and set aside the said
first information report against the applicants therein.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and
the learned A.P.P. for non-applicant - State. Though served, none
appeared for non-applicant no.2.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
role assigned to the present applicant stands on the same footing as of
the applicants in above applications i.e. Criminal Application
Nos.338/2025, 652/2025, 450/2025 and 639/2025.
7. We have perused the suicide note, as also the
investigation papers. After going through the same, we find that the
role of present applicant appears to be the same, as of the applicants
against whom the first information report is quashed by this Court.
We may refer here the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami .vrs. State of Maharashtra, reported in
AIR 2021 SC 1, wherein it has been held as under :
"50. More recently in M Arjunan v. State
(represented by its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3
SCC 315, a two judge Bench of this Court,
speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, elucidated
the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC in the following
observations :
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied the accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 IPC."
51. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this
Court in Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana
AIR 2019 SC 4570, a two judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari, expounded on the ingredients of
Section 306 of the IPC, and the factors to be
considered in determining whether a case falls
within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the
following terms :
"38. 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
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
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.
39. 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 accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
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
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
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."
Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana AIR 2019
SC 478, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking
through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows :
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable 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. 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
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
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."
In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR OnLine 2020 SC
759, a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking
through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus :
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of
the IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to
prove mens rea, there has to be something
on record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted
the suicide of the deceased."
8. In view of this, considering the facts and circumstances,
coupled with the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and further the allegations leveled in the first information
report, as also the suicide note, we are of the opinion that there are no
Rgd.
Judgment apl674.25
allegations as regards instigation, aiding or abetting the offence. We
also find that the ingredients are not made out so as to constitute an
offence under Section 108 of the BNS. Even we do not see any
intention on the part of the applicant to instigate or aid the deceased
for commission of the alleged offence, therefore, in absence of the
prerequisites to constitute the offence punishable under Section 108
of the BNS, we deem it appropriate to allow the prayer of the
applicant. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(1) Criminal Application is allowed.
(2) We hereby quash and set aside the First Information
Report No.33/2025 dated 24.03.2025, registered with
Badnera Police Station, Nagpur Railway, for the
offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3[5] of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), to the extent of
present applicant.
(3) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(4) Pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2025 10:31:58
