Bombay High Court
Sumit Sudhakar Badki vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S. ... on 19 June, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:5849-DB
1 8.apl.279.19-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 279 OF 2019
Sumit Sudhakar Patki,
Aged about 31 Years, Occu.- Business,
R/o. Plot No.18, Jai Durga 3,
Manish Nagar, Nagpur. ... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Ganeshpeth,
District Nagpur.
2. Ashok Eknathrao Borkar,
R/o. House No.707, Karnalbagh,
Kashitai Temple, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur,
District Nagpur. ...NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. U. R. Phasate, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 19/06/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.):-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the prayer is made for quashment and setting aside
the charge-sheet bearing R.C.C.No.4369/2023, which was subsequently
2 8.apl.279.19-J.odt
committed to Sessions Case No.351/2024 pending on the file of the
District Judge-20 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur arising out of
First Information Report vide Crime No. 214/2018 dated 05.06.2018
registered with Police Station, Ganeshpeth, District Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Arun Borkar, who
was the brother of the complainant committed suicide for the reason of
alleged continuous torture and harassment by the applicant. A suicide
note was found, in which there is a mention of such harassment by the
applicant for demand of money.
5. We have gone through the charge-sheet and the papers and
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, it
is evident that there was continuous demand by the applicant from the
deceased.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant has filed one suicide note of
Vijay Potbhare along with pursis dated 04.04.2022. In the said suicide
note, he stated that he and the deceased in the present matter Arun
Borkar used to run a business of Bhishi and the certain members failed to
pay the amount towards Bhishi. The deceased and Potghare, therefore,
could not pay the amount to the members and therefore, there was
continuous demand by the members for payment of amount.
3 8.apl.279.19-J.odt
7. Similar is the statement of Mr. Potghare recorded by the police
under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present matter
on 20.06.2018. Thus, it is apparent that the amount which was payable
to the applicant was demanded by the applicant to the deceased.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the following
judgments :
I] Suhas @ Pappu S/o. Sarjerao Kakade and Anr. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1684.
II] Imran s/o. Masood Khan & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Anr. reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri.) 2838.
III] S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in 2010
ALL MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.).
IV] Amit s/o. Ashok Naharkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4768.
9. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suhas @
Pappu S/o. Sarjerao Kakade and Anr. (cited supra).
10. Having gone through the said judgment, it is evident that this
Court has taken a view that making a demand of money from the
deceased will not fall in the definition of abetment as in such cases, the
deceased has remedies like to institute criminal complaint either with the
police or to the Court in order to ventilate his grievance. Suicide could
not be considered as an answer to such demand. In the circumstances,
since no offence is constituted as alleged on the ground that there was a
4 8.apl.279.19-J.odt
demand by the applicant, it would be unjust and unfair to compel the
applicant to face the crime. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
I. The application is allowed.
II. We hereby quash and set aside the charge-sheet bearing
R.C.C.No.4369/2023, which was subsequently committed to
Sessions Case No.351/2024 pending on the file of the District Judge-
20 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur arising out of First
Information Report vide Crime No.214/2018 dated 05.06.2018
registered with Police Station, Ganeshpeth, District Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/06/2025 17:18:11
