[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sanjay Gangadhar Parkhedkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police ... on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2798-DB
1 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 240 OF 2023
Nandkishor Ramdhan Pakhare
Aged about 57 Yrs.,
R/o Khamgaon Raod Vaishnav Nagar
Buldhana, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Borakhedi,
Tq. Motala, Dist. Buldana.
2. Darshan Vishnu Surpatane,
Aged about 23 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Rohinkhed at present
R/o Borakhedi, Tq. Motala,
Dist. Buldana. NON-APPLICANTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 870 OF 2021
1. Sanjay Gangadhar Parkhedkar,
Aged about 53 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Shukla Layout, in front of
Prathana Apartment, Khamgaon.
2. Vinod Kanhaiyalal Ankurne,
Aged about 30 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Talkhed, Tq. Motala,
Dist. Buldana. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Borakhedi,
Tq. Motala, Dist. Buldana.
2 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
2. Darshan Vishnu Surpatane,
Aged about 23 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o Rohinkhed at present
R/o Borakhedi, Tq. Motala,
Dist. Buldana. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. V.S. Alone, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the Applicants and APP for the Non-applicant
No.1/State.
3. The present Applications are preferred by the
Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for quashing of the First Information Report in
connection with Crime No.369/2021 registered with Police
Station Borakhedi, District Buldhana for the offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short "IPC") and consequent proceeding arising out of
the same bearing Charge-sheet No.214/2025.
3 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Informant/Non-applicant No.2 who is the son of
the deceased on an allegation that his father was serving as a
Kotwal of the Village and present Applicants are also from the
same Village. As per the allegations in the FIR the present
Applicants were insisting to settle the issue with one Ritu Shelke
and one Vandana Chawhan who are serving in the Tashil office
and also threatened the deceased that if he denies to settle
their issue with these two employees working in the Tahsil
Office they will not draw his salary TA and DA, and therefore,
the deceased was frustrated and thereby he committed suicide
on 27.06.2021 by hanging himself. On the basis of the said
report Police have registered the crime against the present
Applicants.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, even accepting the allegations as it is and the
suicide note which was found during the investigation and
seized by the Investigating Agency, none of the ingredients to
attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC is attracted. He
submitted that, even accepting the allegations in the suicide
note there is no specific act narrated in the suicide note which
4 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
constrained the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that,
thus the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not made out and
there is no proximity or nexus between the abetment and the
committal of suicide by the deceased. He submitted that, only in
the suicide note it is mentioned that for his death the present
Applicants are responsible which is not sufficient to attract the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, and therefore, no
prima facie case is made out against the present Applicants. In
view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contentions and submitted that, the suicide note shows that
there was a continuous harassment at the hands of the present
Applicants, which sufficiently shows prima facie case against the
present Applicants, and therefore, the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC is made out. He also invited my attention
towards the various statements of the witnesses and submitted
that the suicide note and the statements of the witnesses
discloses that the consistent harassment was at the hands of the
present Applicants which constrained the deceased to commit
suicide and thereby the deceased committed suicide, and
therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.
5 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
7. Despite the service of notice none appears for the
Non-applicant No.2.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that as per the allegations
in the FIR that the father of the Non-applicant No.2 was serving
as Kotwal and attached with the Tahsil Office, Motala. As per
the allegations, in Tahsil Office the work of scanning of the
documents was in progress, and therefore, his father was
deputed there to assist the employees working in the Tahsil
Office. It further reveals from the recitals of the FIR that, his
father was not communicating with him from last 3 to 4 days
and he was under pressure and thereby he has committed
suicide. During the spot panchnama, one chit was found in his
pant pocket, wherein it was mentioned that the present
Applicants were insisting his father to fix the setting alongwith
the two employees working in the Tahsil Office and if he doesn't
do so then they will not draw his salary as well as TA and DA,
and therefore, the deceased was under pressure and thereby he
has committed suicide. The statements which are recorded
during the investigation are also on the similar line. During
6 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
investigation the suicide note was seized. The recitals of the
suicide are as under:
7 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
8 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
9 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
9. Now, a question remains whether such type of
allegations that the present Applicants were insisting him to do
the setting alongwith the two employees working in the Tahsil
Office and threatened him that they will not draw his salary and
other perks, is sufficient to infer that it was an abetment and
there was no alternative before the deceased but to commit
suicide, and therefore, he has committed suicide. Whether this
type of allegations are sufficient to show that the present
Applicants have abeted him to commit suicide.
10. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) of IPC 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."
11. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads
thus:
10 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
"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
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."
12. Section 108 of IPC 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
11 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
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.
12 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
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
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.
has therefore committed the offence defined in this section
and is liable to the punishment for murder."
13. Section 306 of IPC 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.
13 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
14. 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 actions must align with one of
the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of IPC. This means the
accused either encouraged the individual to take their life,
conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. In the case of Kamlakar Vs. State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023
14 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the ingredients
of Section 306 of IPC 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. 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
15 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
16 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
18. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State
of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 , the Hon'ble Apex Court extensively
dealt with concept of 'abetment' in the context of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In that case, the allegation
against the accused/appellant therein was that he had abetted
the commission of suicide of his sister's husband one Chander
Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were matrimonial disputes
between sister of the appellant/accused and her husband and in
connection with the said disputes, the appellant had allegedly
threatened and abused Chander Bhushan. Chander Bhushan
committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by the
prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place between the
appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior. It was
alleged that the appellant had used abusive language against
said Chander Bhushan and had told him "to go and die". The
appellant, who had been chargesheeted for an offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a
17 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
for quashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was
dismissed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant
did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not
constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word
'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic
or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of
mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation."
19. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with
the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the
mind of the deceased and which draw him to suicide will not be
sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetal
impulse or ill-fated thoughts of the suicide, however
unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot fray the fabric of the
provision contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In
order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a
result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused
18 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
is a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code.
20. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and
108 of IPC, shows the requirement is a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in
the absence of the same, the conviction cannot be sustained.
There has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being
held liable under Section 306 of IPC.
21. By applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that
there is an allegation against the present Applicants that they
were insisting to fix the setting between the two employees and
harassed him. Admittedly, what type of harassment or the
abetment is not mentioned in the suicide note, only it is
mentioned that they were troubling him, and therefore, he is
committing suicide. That itself is not sufficient to attract the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. There has to be
some exact act narrated by the Non-applicant No.2 or the
deceased in his suicide note to attract the offence punishable
19 55.APL.240-2023 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
under Section 306 of IPC. Even, if it is assumed that the
material collected by the prosecution is true, it would not be
sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution, and therefore,
conducting of the trial against the present Applicants would be
an empty formality and would be an abuse of process of law. In
view of that, the Applications deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application (APL) No. 240/2023 and
Criminal Application (APL) No.870/2021 are
allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 369/2021 registered with Police Station
Borakhedi, District Buldhana for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Charge-sheet
No.214/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of the present Applicants.
22. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/02/2026 10:40:50
