Bombay High Court
Pravindas S/O. Ramdas Belkhede vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Shirkhed, ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10413-DB
38 APL 1382-2023.odt 1/22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1382/2023
Pravindas S/o Ramdas Belkhede,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Wagholi Katpur, Tah. Morshi,
District - Amravati
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Shirkhed, Tah.
Morshi, Distt-Amravati
2. Swati Ravindra Bure,
Aged about 41 years, Occu.
Agriculturist, R/o. Katpur, Tah.
Morshi, District-Amravati
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for applicant
Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Shri D.P. Dapurkar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 06.10.2025
38 APL 1382-2023.odt 2/22
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The present application is preferred by the applicant for
quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime
No. 0260/2023, registered by non-applicant No.1 - Police Station
Shirkhed, Tah. Morshi, District Amravati, for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet
bearing No. 66/2024, and consequent proceeding Session Case
No.46/2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Warud.
3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the
application are as under:
The informant Swati Ravindra Bure is wife of the deceased,
who lodged the FIR on an allegation that they have purchased the
agricultural land adjacent to the agricultural land of the present
applicant. On 26.04.2023 at about 9:00 a.m. her husband i.e.
deceased and son Manthan Ravindra Bure had been to the Amravati
and they returned in the afternoon and went to the agricultural
field. At that time her husband and son were abused by the present
applicant and insulted and humiliated. Therefore, her husband
consumed poison and committed suicide. On the basis of the said
report police have registered the crime against the present
applicant. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has drawn
the spot panchanama recorded the statements of the witnesses and
after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against
the present applicant. During the investigation the suicide note was
also seized by the Investigating Officer.
4. Heard Shri Gandhe, learned Counsel for the applicant who
submitted that as far as the allegations are concerned, they are not
attracting the offence of abetment which is described under Section
107 of the IPC. He submitted that there is no proximity between the
two acts. He submitted that even if suicide note is taken into
consideration, it is wholly to the extent that right of a way is not
given to him, and therefore, he has committed suicide as his way
was restrained by the present applicant and abused him. He
submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is there was no
positive acts or action on the part of the applicant which drove the
deceased to commit suicide. There is no close proximity as to the
act of suicide. Thus even accepting the case as it is there is no
mens rea on the part of the accused appearing on the face of
record, and therefore, the charge under the aforesaid section cannot
be sustained.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that at the time of quashing of the FIR what is required
to be seen is whether there was a requisite mens rea and
obviously, it is a matter of evidence. A strong suspicion is also
expressed to proceed against the accused. It is submitted that
overall material shows that the applicant created certain
circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. At
this stage, the Court is required to examine the material, documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom if
taken on their face value disclose an existence of ingredients or
not. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during investigation
is sufficient to proceed against the present applicant, and therefore,
application deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 reiterated the
said contentions and submitted that whether there was an abetment
which drove the deceased to commit suicide or not is the matter of
evidence. At this stage, the statements of the various witnesses,
especially the statement of the son of deceased who was along with
him at the relevant time is sufficient to proceed against the present
applicant and therefore the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to
see what are the considerations as far as the offence under Section
306 of the IPC is concerned.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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.
10. Section 108 of the Indian Penal 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.
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.
(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 dweiling-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.
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. B accordingly
instigates C to murder Z, and C 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 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence of
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.
14. 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 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.
State of 8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. 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."
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 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 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."
15. In light of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provision what is to
be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or added to
the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect
inducement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be
shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or
who are doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.
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 there was dispute between the
applicant and the deceased on account of right of way. As per the
contention of the informant there was a way from the agricultural
land of the present applicant to approach his field and the applicant
has denied the deceased to use that right and on that count there
were abuses to the deceased and deceased was humiliated and
therefore he committed suicide. During the investigation, the
suicide note was seized from the person of the deceased. The recital
of the suicide note are as under:
^^izfo.knkl csy[kszMs ;kauh ek>~;k 'ksrkpk jLrk can dsY;keqGs eyk
nksu o"kkZ iklqu ;s.;k tk.;klkBh vMp.k fuekZ.k >kY;keqGs eyk
mRikUukr iq.kZr% ?kV >kyh rlsp ek>~;k dqVqackoj miklekjhph osG o
eh dtZ cktkjh >kY;kus eh vkRegR;k dfjr vkgs-
veksy csy[ksMs ;kauk eh foghjhrhy ik.;kpk fuEes fgLlk fygqu fnyk
R;kaP;k toGqu ‡‡ gtkj :ijs ?ks.ks ckdh vkgs rfj rs iSls veksy
Hkkm ek>~;k dqVqackyk yodj ns.ks-
vkdk'k rq dks.krkgh fopkj u djrk ‰ rkj[ksyk isijyk tk.ks dkj.k
rq>~;koj eh ,d dqVqackpk Hkkj Vkdqu tkr vkgs rq ykxyk rjp
vkiys dqVqac pkysy vkth ekeh] lk;yh] eaFku vkf.k rq O;ofLFkr
jkgus-**
16. Thus, considering the allegation levelled against the present
applicant and the suicide note, which is to the extent that deceased
was using the way from the agricultural land of the present
applicant since long and it was restrained and he was abused
therefore, he committed suicide. Whether this act of the present
applicant amounts to abetment of suicide. In the case of
Kamaruddin Dastagir vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
MANU/SC/1266/2024 wherein while dealing with the provisions
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code extensively it is held
that the very first clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code
lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person
who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation'
to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with
abetment. In paragraph No. 25 it is observed that even in cases
where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of
cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord
and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and
that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the
mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty
intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily
not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. While dealing with the situation on the basis of
the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that the accused-
appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even
assuming there was love affair between the parties, it is only a case
of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to
abetment to suicide.
17. In Monika Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. relied upon
by the present applicant wherein also the Division Bench of this
Court by applying the various decisions held that on applying the
parameters and while exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but conferment of wide
power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous
and more diligent duty on the court. However, at the same time, the
court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur
and Bhajan Lal has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
18. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 of the IPC is
'abets'. 'Abetement' is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per section
107 of the 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 such things. There are two explanation to Section 107. As per
Explanation 1, even if, a person by way of wilful misrepresentation
or concealment of a material fact which he otherwise found 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 that act, either prior to or at the time
of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.
19. Section 114 of the IPC is an explanation for a clarification of
Section 107 of IPC. What Section 114 of the IPC says is that
whenever any person is absent but was present when the act or
offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the
abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such
an act of offence and would be liable to be punished as an abetor."
20. 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'.
21. 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 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."
22. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case
and even accepting the allegations as it is, it reveals that there was
a dispute between the present applicant and the deceased on
account of right of way. It is alleged that on that count, there were
altercation and the abuses on the part of the present applicant and
therefore deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide. On
examination of the instant case on the touchstone of the principles
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the entire material collected
during the investigation, including the statements of the witnesses,
suicide note, etc. it reveals that the dispute on account of right of
way was between the applicant and the deceased. Moreover, the
suicide committed by the deceased is not an immediate result of
that dispute. Thus, there was no proximity or nexus between the
two acts i.e. the dispute between the deceased and the present
applicant and the suicide. Merely, because there was a dispute
between the deceased and the present applicant on account of
restrains from using the agricultural land as a way to approach the
field, is not sufficient to infer that out of that dispute the deceased
has committed suicide.
23. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108 and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code and applying it to 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 or 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 trial on the basis of the
above said evidence would not only be a mere formality but also
abuse of process of law.
24. 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.
0260/2023, registered by non-applicant No.1 - Police Station
Shirkhed, Tah. Morshi, District Amravati, for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet
bearing No. 66/2024, and consequent proceeding Session Case
No.46/2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Warud,
are hereby quashed and set aside.
25. The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
