[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Anil Jugalkishor Agrawal vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps City ... on 8 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:264-DB




         1/8                                                   9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 487 OF 2020


               Anil Jugalkishor Agrawal
               Aged about : 49 Years, Occu : Business; R/o
               Dahisath, Amravati, Tahsil and District
               Amravati.                                            ... APPLICANT

                      VERSUS

         1.    The State of Maharashtra
               Through Police Station Officer, Police
               Station City Kotwali, Amravati. Tahsil and
               District Amravati.

         2.    Aruna w/o Dharmendra Patil
               Aged : 44 Years, Occu : Household; R/o
               Chichfile, Amravati, Tahsil and District
               Amravati.                                     ... NON -APPLICANTS

        Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ved R. Deshpande, Advocate for
        Applicant.
        Mr. G. S. Umale, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
        None for the Non-applicant No.2/Informant.

                                                  CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
                                                  DATE : JANUARY 08, 2026.

        ORAL JUDGMENT

. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of learned Counsel appearing for both sides. None appeared for the

Non-applicant No.2/Informant, though served.

2/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

2. The present Application is preferred by the Applicant for quashing

of the First Information Report dated 19/6/2020 in connection with Crime No.

183/2020 registered with Police Station, City Kotwali, Amravati for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Non-applicant No.2

lodged police complaint stating that her son Nikhil was employed at Marathi

Patraka Bhavan, Walcut Compound. He was appointed as a care taker and

used to maintain the record of the Patrakar Bhavan. His monthly salary was

Rs.6000/- and his working hours were 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Due to surge of

COVID-19 pandemic, Patrakar Bhavan was closed and two months salary of

Nikhil was not paid. Therefore, on 16/6/2020 he has committed suicide in the

premises of Patrakar Bhavan by hanging himself. According to the Informant,

Applicant is responsible for death of her son Nikhil. On the basis of aforesaid

police complaint, an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is registered

against the present Applicant.

4. It is the submission of the Applicant that he is owner of 'Amravati

Mandal' Newspaper and the Chief Editor of Newspaper 'Matrubhumi'. The

Journalist community in Amravati have established "Marathi Patrakar Bhavan"

3/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

for the benefit and convenience of Press Reporters at Amravati. The said

Patrakar Bhavan was looked after by the Committee of 17 members, of which,

Applicant was elected as President.

5. It is further submission of the Applicant that deceased was in

search of employment, and therefore, he was employed by the Applicant to

look after the work of Patrakar Bhavan. It is further submitted that there is no

averment that at any time before the incident any demand was made by the

deceased for releasing his salary or the present Applicant has instigated him

for committing suicide. In the light of this submission, it will be relevant to rely

upon Sections 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code, 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.

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."

4/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

Perusal of these provisions clearly states that abetment involves a

mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a

particular thing.

6. To bring a charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the act

of abetment required the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding

another person to commit suicide. Abetment requires an active act, direct or

indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no

other option but to commit suicide.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court has

consistently held that, to attract the offence of abetment of suicide it is

important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the

commission of suicide. It must be in closed proximity to the time of committing

suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement reveals mens rea to

commit suicide by the victim in such a position that he would have left no

other option but to commit suicide.

8. In support of above referred legal position, the Applicant has

rightly relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the 5/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

case of Nipun Aneja and Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 4091, more particularly, paragraph Nos.21 and 22, which reads thus :

"21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.q., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make 6/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them."

9. In the background of abovesaid legal position and the perusal of

record shows that there was no such instigation on the part of Applicant in the

matter. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not

satisfied in the matter.

7/8 9.Judg.apl.487.2020.odt

10. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out from the order of

the Sessions Court the findings recorded while granting bail, CCTV footage

which was collected by the police shows that deceased had reached the spot on

his own, consumed liquor, and therefore, police have not taken any action

against any person. So also in respect of salary it is recorded in the order that

during investigation, Investigating Officer has found that Nikhil used to

maintain the accounts of said Patrakar Bhavan. Statements further shows that