Vikas S/O Ramchandra Dongre vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Ural
2026 Latest Caselaw 1179 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vikas S/O Ramchandra Dongre vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Ural on 3 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:2342-DB




              Judgment

                                                                  14 apl1316.25

                                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1316 OF 2025

              1. Vikas s/o Ramchandra Dongre,
              aged about 62 years, occupation:
              agriculturist.

              2. Sagar s/o Vikas Dongre, aged
              about 38 years, occupation:
              agriculturist.

              3. Sandip s/o Vikas Dongre, aged
              about 34 years, occupation:
              agriculturist.

              All r/o Borgaon Vairale, tahsil
              Balapur, district Akola.        ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Police Station Ural, tahsil
              Balapur, district Akola.

              2. Mayawati w/o Prahlad
              Wankhede, aged about 42 years,
              occupation: agriculturist, r/o Borgoan
              Vairale, tahsil Balapur, district
              Akola.                        ..... Non-applicants.



                                                                        .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                14 apl1316.25

                            2

==============================
Shri S.P.Sonwane, Counsel for the Applicants.
Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri V.T.Suryawanshi, Counsel for Non-applicant No.2.
==============================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 03/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri S.P.Sonwane for the

applicants, learned APP Shri N.B.Jawade for the State, and

learned counsel Shri V.T.Suryawanshi for the non-applicant

No.2 (the informant). Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, the applicants are seeking

quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.421/2023

registered for offences under Section 306 read with 34 of

the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing chargesheet No.41/2024 which converted into

Sessions Case No.250/2024 pending before learned

Additional Sessions Court, Akola.

.....3/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

3. The FIR came to be lodged on the basis of a report

lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) who is

wife of Pralhad (the deceased). On 8.12.2023, she went to

attend her work at about 9:00 am. So also, her two sons

were attending the work. She returned back home at 6:00

pm and found that door of the house was locked from

inside. She gave a call, but no one replied and, therefore,

she pipped from the window and found that her husband

has hanged himself. She raised hue and cry. The other

villagers also gathered there and it is revealed that the

deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself.

Thereafter, the suicidal note was found with the deceased

wherein names of the applicants were mentioned and it

was also mentioned that he is committing suicide due to

the harassment at the hands of the applicants. Thereafter,

she lodged the report. During investigation, the

investigating officer has recorded relevant statements of

.....4/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

witnesses. The suicidal note was also seized and after

completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be

filed against the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

there was previous family dispute between two families

and out of the said dispute, this FIR came to be lodged. He

has also stated about previous incidents regarding enmity

between two families and submitted that even accepting

the allegations as it is at its face value, no offences are

made out in view of Sections 107 and 108 of the IPC. He

submitted that ingredients of the offence under Section

306 of the IPC are also not made out. There is no nexus or

proximity between the abetment and the act committed by

the deceased. He further submitted that after thought,

after five days of the incident, the alleged FIR came to be

lodged after concoction story of the prosecution. In view

.....5/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

of that, as no prima facie case is made out against the

applicants, the application deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly

opposed the said contentions and submitted that during

investigation, the investigating officer has seized suicidal

note which discloses the offence against the applicants. In

view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant also reiterated

the said contentions and invited my attention towards

recital of the FIR and submitted that recital of the FIR

discloses that harassment was to the extent that there was

no alternative before the deceased but to commit suicide

and, therefore, he has committed suicide. He submitted

that as the harassment was to such extent that the

deceased was abused as well as beaten in presence of

public, he felt humiliated and, therefore, he committed

suicide. Thus, the offence is made out against the

.....6/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

applicants and, therefore, the application deserves to be

rejected.

7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, question comes for consideration is,

whether the material collected during the investigation is

sufficient to say that the applicants have abetted the

deceased to commit suicide.

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.

.....7/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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.

.....8/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 authorized 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".

10. Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:

.....9/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

"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.

.....10/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

(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

.....11/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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 possession. A induces .....12/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

to believe that the property belongs to A. 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. 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.

.....13/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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. 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 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".

.....14/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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.

12. 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 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

.....15/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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.

15. In the case of Laxmi Das vs. The State of West

Bengal, reported in (2025) ALL SCR Cri 350 wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has considered ingredients of offence

under Section 306 of the IPC and by referring the earlier

decision in the case of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State

of Maharashtra and anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

and interpreted Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC and

observed, as under:

.....16/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide".

13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing

.....17/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has further referred the

decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001)9 SCC 618, wherein it is

observed, as under:

"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 .....18/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has further referred the

decision in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal

Pradesh, reported in (2017)7 SCC 5780 and held, as

under:

"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit .....19/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life."

16. In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs.

State of Karnataka, reported in MANU/SC/1266/2024,

wherein also the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered its

earlier decisions and held that, 'instigation' is to provoke,

incite or encourage a person to do an act. In order to

constitute 'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused

had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of

conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was

left with no other option except to commit suicide".

.....20/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

17. By applying the aforesaid principles laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case and after going

through the suicidal note, which is reproduced, as under",

it is to be ascertained whether the act of the applicants is

said to be "abetment" at the hands of the applicants:

"eh iz- uk- oku[kMs fpB~Bh yhgwu Bsorks dh eyk gkr:u jLR;kus tkr vlrkauk] eyk lkxj ;kauh eyk vMohys o eyk Eg.kkys dh rq÷;kP;kus vkeps dkgh gksow 'kdr ukgh- vkEgh T;k nho'kh rw÷;k ckikps PM >kys R;k nho'kh (vLi"V) vkEgh nksu yk[k ikp gtkj :i;s gkWVy t; eYgkj e/;s fnys- rq÷;kP;kus vkeps dkghp gksoq 'kdr ukgh o eyk ftos ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh] tj rq iksyhl e/;s rdzkj dsyh rj rq÷;k dqVqackuk vkEgh lq[kkus txw fnukj ukgh- rqyk o rw÷;k vkeps gkr [kqi ykac vkgsr] vkeP;k toG [kwi iSlk vkgs- iSlkus dkgh gksow 'kdrs- rw vkeph cjkscjh d: 'kdr ukgh vk.kh nqljh xks"V Eg.kts laxe Mkaxjs gk ;k vxksnj vkeph ?kjh xkMh ?ksowu ;sowu vtwu rweph FkaMh >kyh ukgh dk; vtwu FkaMh

fotsrk Mksaxjs laxe Mksaxjs gs R;kph yk;dh dk;- vtwu rqep dkghp >ky ukgh- vtwu rwePkk dk;Zdze ckdh vkgs- fo Mks lk-Mks 'kq-Mks fo-Mks ;k loZ yksdkauk daVkGwu eh ek>h thou ;k=k laiohrks- ek÷;k ;k vkRegR;kl loZ gs ikp tu tckcnkj vkgsr eyk U;k; feGkok gh fouarh iz-uk- oku[kMs

.....21/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

vk.kh o:u vls Eg.kkys dh vkEgh vkeps dkdk ----- ;kauk vkEgh dkghp letw 'kdr ukgh rj rq dqBY;k dks.k rq÷;k ikBh ekxs dq.kh ukgh vkrk rwyk vkEgh dk; d: gs rw ik;tks vk.kh eh 'ksxkao ;sFkwu cksjxko ;sFks dk vkyks gs rqyk dkgh ekghrh ukgh dh QDr rw÷;k lkBh gs eh ,d >sjkWDl ukxiwj ;sFks ikBohyh vkgs- iz- uk- oku[kMs ek>s v{kj riklwu igk ek>s ?kjP;kuk ijs'kku d: udk-"

18. By applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of

present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals

that it is only mentioned by the deceased in the suicide

note that, "there was harassment to him by the

applicants," but no specific act or nature of harassment is

mentioned by the deceased in the said suicidal note.

19. Thus, in absence of any positive act on the part of

the applicants, it cannot be said that there was

"instigation" or "provocation" by the applicants to the

deceased and, therefore, there was no alternative to the

deceased but to commit suicide.

.....22/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

20. Thus, applying the aforesaid principles and

considering the entire material on record and after going

through the investigation papers, it is difficult to hold that

the act of the applicants would constitute the offence of

"abetment".

21. In this view of the matter, the application deserves

to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following

order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.421/2023

registered for offences under Section 306 read with 34 of

the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing chargesheet No.41/2024 which converted into

Sessions Case No.250/2024 pending before learned

.....23/-

Judgment

14 apl1316.25

Additional Sessions Court, Akola are hereby quashed and

set aside to the extent of the present applicants.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 12/02/2026 10:44:16