Bombay High Court
Nikhil S/O Pralhad Sapate And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps ... on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9640-DB
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1764 OF 2024
1. Nikhil s/o Pralhad Sapate,
Aged about 32 Years,
Occupation : Labour,
2. Pratiksha w/o Nikhil Sapate,
Aged about 25 Years,
Occupation : Labour,
3. Jyotsna w/o Subhash Sable,
Aged about 48 Years.
Occupation : Labour,
4. Subhash s/o Govindrao Sable,
Aged about 63 Years,
Occupation : Labour,
All applicant Nos.1 to 4,
R/o. Naya Akola,
Taluka : Amravati,
District : Amravati - 444801. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Walgaon,
District Amravati - 444602.
2. Shobha w/o Gangadharrao Sapate,
Aged about 48 Years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o Naya Akola, Taluka Amravati,
District Amravati - 444801. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Pratik Mehta, Counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Shamshi Haider, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 19.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2025
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
(2)
JUDGMENT :
(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
of the parties.
3. Present application is preferred by the applicants for
quashing of the First Information Report, in connection with
Crime No.76/2024 registered under Sections 306, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent
proceedings therein charge sheet No.92/2024 bearing Sessions
Court No.199/2024, pending before the Sessions Court,
Amravati.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the
application are as under:
Informant Shobha Gangadhar Sapate has lodged a
report at Walgaon Police Station, District Amravati, alleging that
the applicant No.1 is her nephew, the applicant No.2 is the wife
of the applicant No.1, applicant Nos.3 and 4 are the in-laws. As
per her allegations, on 15.11.2023, there was an altercation of
words between her son and the applicant No.1, on that all the
applicants abused her as well as her son and the deceased, who
is her husband. As per her allegations, without any reasons, they
were abused by the present applicants and therefore, her
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
husband felt humiliated, consumed poison and committed
suicide. On the basis of the said report, police have registered
the crime against the present applicants.
5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has
recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses, collected the
postmortem report and after completion of the investigation
submitted the charge sheet against the accused/applicants.
6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mehta for the applicants,
who submitted that as far as the allegations are concerned, out
of dispute between the two families, the FIR came to be lodged.
He submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, nowhere
it reflect that what actually act or instigation was on the part of
the applicants, due to which deceased has committed suicide.
Even accepting the allegation as it is, no offence is made out
against the present applicants as there is no mens rea on the
part of the present applicants appears from the record
therefore, the charge under the aforesaid sections is not
sustained. In support of his contention he placed reliance on:
(1) Ayyub and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another in Criminal Appeal No.461/2025, decided on
07.02.2025, and
(2) Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Criminal Appeal No.221/2025, decided on 17.01.2025.
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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 accused. He submitted that
overall material shows that the applicants created certain
circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
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 the existence of
ingredients or not. Thus, at this stage, the material collected
during investigation is sufficient to proceed against the present
applicants and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
8. Before entering into merits of the case, it is necessary
to see what are consideration as far as the offence under Section
306 of the IPC is concerned.
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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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.
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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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 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.
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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.
Explanation 4.-- The abetment of an offence
being an offence, the abetment of such an
abetment is also as offence.
Illustration
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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
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.
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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.
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.
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
15. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police and anr, 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.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of
Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this
Court has analysed different meanings of
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
"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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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."
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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
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.
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that
the informant and the present applicants are related to each
other. The applicant No.1 is the nephew and applicant No.2 is
the wife of applicant No.1 and the applicant No.3 is mother of the
applicant No.1. Admittedly, there is a previous dispute between
the present applicants and the informant. Admittedly, the death
of the deceased was caused due to poisoning. Thus, the death
admittedly, is not a natural death. During investigation, the
Investigating Officer has recorded the various statements of the
witnesses. The allegations levelled against the present
applicants are that out of previous dispute and on 15.11.2023,
there was an altercation of the words between the present
applicants and the informant. They were abused by the present
applicants. It further alleged that she was threatened by the
applicant No.2 that she would implicate her son in a false case.
The nature of the allegation is that as there were abuses in filthy
language to her as well as to her son and the husband and
therefore, her husband felt humiliated and committed suicide by
consuming poison. Even accepting the said allegation as it is,
and even accepting the facts that there was some altercation
between the present applicants and the informant, there is
nothing on record to show that they have in any manner abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. No single instance or the exact
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
words are narrated by which the present applicants alleged to
have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing
on record to show that there was no alternative before he
deceased but commit to suicide and such types of circumstances
are created by the present applicants. Learned Counsel for the
applicants relied upon on the decision of Ayyub and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (referred supra), wherein
also this aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Aepx Court by
referring its earlier decision and held that "We find none of the
ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306
IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are
being borne out from the material on record. The utterance
attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said
to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life."
18. In Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh (referred supra) wherein also this aspect is considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by referring the catena of
decisions observed that "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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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."
19. 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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
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.
20. 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.
21. In the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Ors
Vs. State of Gujrat (referred supra) wherein also the provisions
under Section 306 and 107 are extensively considered and
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "attempt to commit
suicide is an offence in India. Section 309 IPC says that whoever
attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards such act,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
may extend to one year or with fine or with both. However, once
suicide is carried out, the offence is complete. Considering the
nature of the offence, obviously such a person would be beyond
the reach of the law. Therefore, question of penalising him would
not arise but whoever abets the commission of such suicide
would be penalised under Section 306 of IPC. Punishment
prescribed under Section 306 of IPC is imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall
also be liable to fine. What Section 306 IPC says is that if any
person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of
such suicide shall be punished as above."
22. It is further held that "therefore, 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
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
clarifies that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of
commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act."
23. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification of
Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 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
or offence and would be liable to be punished as an abettor.
24. 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'."
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
25. 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.
26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that
the allegations are only to the extent that the present applicants
have abused the deceased and other family members and
threatened to implicate them falsely, due to which, the deceased
has committed suicide. On examination of the instant case on
the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
Court, the entire material collected during the investigation even
accepting that the deceased and other family members were
abused and threatened, suicide committed by the deceased is
not immediate result of the said act. Thus, there was no
proximity or nexus between two acts.
27. 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 ingredients are attracted to
the case in hand. The material appears to be insufficient for
subjecting the applicants 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
applicants. In such circumstances, subjecting the applicants to
trial on the basis of the above said evidence would not only be a
mere formality but also abuse of process of law.
28. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to
be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report, in connection with
Crime No.76/2024 dated 07.03.2024 registered with
Police Station Walgaon, District Amravati for the
offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
apl.1764.2024.Judgment.odt
consequent proceedings arising out of which charge
sheet No.92/2024 dated 15.07.2024 bearing Sessions
Case No.199/2024, pending before the Sessions Court,
Amravati, are hereby quashed, against the present
applicants.
The application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/09/2025 14:53:07
