[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O. Amrutrao Bobde (Patil) vs The State Of Mah. Represented Thr. Pso, ... on 6 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5690-DB
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1486 OF 2023
1. Bhushan Dnyaneshwar Bobade
Aged about 33 years, APPLICANT
Occupation : Service,
R/o Tirupati Nagar Darwha Road,
Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist,
Yavatmal
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station NON-APPLICANTS
House Officer, Yavatmal
Rural Police Station, Tq. and Dist.
Yavatmal
2. Smt. Jyotsna Suresh Gawande
Aged about 45 years, Occ.
Housewife,
R/o Dattatray Nagar, Darwha Road,
Yavatmal Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.D. Darne, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1290 OF 2023
1. Dilip s/o Amrutrao Bobde(Patil) APPLICANT
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Chief Managing
Director,
R/o 301, Vienna Plot No.12, 4th
Gulmohar Cross Road, JVPD
Scheme Juhu Mumbai, Tahsil and
District Mumbai
// V E R S U S //
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
2
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Represented Through NON-APPLICANTS
Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Yavatmal
(Rural) Tq. and Dist.
Yavatmal
2. Smt. Jyotsna Suresh Gawande
Aged about 45 years, Occ.
Housewife, R/o Dattatray Nagar,
Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.S. Manohar,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED :- 06.04.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. By these applications, the applicants are seeking for
quashing of the First Information Report registered against them
in connection with Crime No. 273/2023 registered at Police
Station Yavatmal, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
3. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by wife of the deceased on an allegation that deceased is
her husband working as Manager in Sai Point Honda Showroom,
Yavatmal wherein applicant in Criminal Application
No.1290/2023 Dilip Amrutrao Bobade is a Chief Executive Officer
and accused No.2 Bhushan Dnyaneshwar Bobade who is applicant
in Criminal Application No.1486/2023 was working as Assistant
Manager and accused No.3 Sachin Bobade was working as
Assistant Manager in the said company. It is alleged that deceased
was working with the accused persons since 2007 and prior to six
months, accused persons have terminated the deceased from
service by making false allegation against him as to the
misappropriation of the amount. Thereafter all the accused
persons including the present applicants were harassing,
pressuring and also threatening to kill him. It is further alleged
that it was threatened to him if he has not paid the
misappropriated amount, then he has to face with the dire
consequences. Therefore, the deceased was under pressure and
prior to one month, one of the applicant, Bhushan Bobde and co-
accused Sachin Bobde came in the house of the deceased and
threatened, pressurised and therefore, deceased was under the
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
apprehension and thereby he has committed suicide by hanging
himself by writing a suicide note. On the basis of the said report
police have registered crime against the present applicants.
4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicant in
application No.1290/23. He submitted that even accepting the
allegation as it is the offence under Section 306 is not constituted
as the basic ingredients to attract the offence of abetment is
absent in the present case. He has invited my attention towards
the recitals of the FIR and submitted that as far as present
applicant is concerned, general allegations is levelled against him.
Even accepting the allegation as it is against the present
applicant there is no close proximity as to the act of the suicide as
the alleged incident of threatening is of prior to six months of the
date of suicide and thereafter the deceased has committed suicide.
Thus, there is no nexus between the two acts. He submitted that
to attract the offence, requisite mens rea is required which is
absent in the present case. In view of that, application deserves to
be allowed.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
5. Learned counsel appearing in application No.1486/23
also endorsed the same contention and submitted that even
accepting the allegation as it is no offence is made out against the
present applicant. In view of that, the application deserves to be
allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and invited my attention towards the statement of wife
of deceased and submitted that wherein she specifically made an
allegation that prior to one month the applicant Bhushan along
with the accused Sachin had been to her house and threatened
her and therefore, there is specific allegations as far as the
applicant Bhushan is concerned which is sufficient to attract the
offence of abetment. He also invited my attention towards the
suicide note wherein also there is a reference of Bhushan Bobade
and he submitted that name of the present applicant Dilip Bobade
is also mentioned in the suicide note which sufficiently shows that
the applicants have created such circumstances which left no
option before the deceased but to commit suicide and thereby
committed suicide and therefore, both the applications deserve to
be rejected.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
7. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are the considerations as far as 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.
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.[Section 45 of BNS] 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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
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.
Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:
108. Abettor.-- [Section 45 of B.N.S., 2023]
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
(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 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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.
9. 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.
10. The said Section 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their
life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. In the case of Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No.1485/ 2011, decided on 12.10.2023 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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, the Apex Court has analysed
different meanings of "instigation". The relevant paras 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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."
14. In the light of the 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
suicide. There must be direct or indirect incitement to the
commission of suicide and accused must be shown to have
played an active role by act of instigation or doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
15. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals
that except mentioning of the names of the present
applicants in the suicide note no specific date, no specific
time is mentioned by the deceased as regards threatening by
the present applicants. Admittedly, the death of the deceased
is due to asphyxia due to hanging. Thus, the death
admittedly is not natural death. During investigation the
Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of
the witnesses. The statement of the wife of the deceased
also not shows any specific instance as to the instigation or
abetment at the hands of the present applicant even
accepting that the present applicants and other co-accused
have threatened him.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
16. While dealing with the provisions under Section
306 of the IPC extensively and in catena of decisions it is held
that the very first clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code lays down that a person, who abets 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. 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 it can be
held that even accepting that they were asking about money
of the misappropriation amount it cannot be said to be
abetment at the hands of the present applicants. This issue is
further considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
reported in (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 288 and Monika vs. State
of Maharashtra and other reported in Law Finder Doc ID #
1998176.
17. In Monika Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
referred supra 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. In the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Ors Vs.
State of Gujrat (referred supra) wherein also the provisions under
Sections 306 and 107 are extensively considered and observed by
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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 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."
19. 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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 act, either
prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the
doing of that act."
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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
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 de-
ceased 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.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
22. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals
that there was an allegation against the deceased that he
has misappropriated the amount and the present applicants
were demanding the said amount. Even accepting the said
allegations as it is, suicide note and statement of the wife of
the deceased, there is nothing on record as the entire
material collected during the investigation only shows that
they have threatened the deceased but what type of
threatening was there and nothing is on record to show that
the said threatening was of such nature that there was no
other alternative before the deceased but to commit suicide
and therefore, he has committed suicide. Merely because the
present applicants even accepting that they were asking him
to pay the amount could not be sufficient to say that they
have abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
23. 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
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
the applicants for trial. On the basis of the evidence on record, it
cannot be stated that the material which collected during the
investigation is sufficient to establish or constitute the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In such circumstances,
subjecting the applicants for trial would be an abuse of process of
law. In view of that, both the applications deserve to be allowed.
24. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application Nos.1486/2023 and
1290/2023 are allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report registered against
the applicants in connection with Crime No.273/2023
registered at Police Station Yavatmal District Yavatmal for the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside to the extent
of present applicants.
25. The criminal applications stand disposed of in
the above said terms.
45 apl 1486.23.odt + conn..odt
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/04/2026 13:54:56
