[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bhimrao Arjun Shekade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:9501


                                                     {1}                REVN 30 OF 2025


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2025
                    .     Bhimrao S/o Arjun Shekade
                          Aged : 46 years, Occu.: Agri.
                          R/o. Patsara, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed.       ....Applicant
                                Versus
                    1.    The State of Maharashtra
                          Through Police Station Officer,
                          Police Station Amalner,
                          District Beed.

                    2.    Sushil W/o Gopinath Garje
                          Age: 21 years, Occu.: Service,
                          R/o. : Patsara, Tq.Ashti,
                          District Beed.                             ....Respondents
                                                     .....
                    Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Nisargraj B. Garje
                    APP for Respondent no.1 : Mrs.Saie Swapnil Joshi
                    Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Sandip Ramnath Andhale
                                                     .....
                                            CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                            RESERVED ON  : 05 MARCH, 2026
                                            PRONOUNCED ON : 07 MARCH, 2026

                    JUDGMENT :

1. Revisionist takes exception to judgment and order dated

01-01-2025 passed on application exh.27 in Sessions Case No.94 of

2022 by which discharge application filed under Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Beed.

{2} REVN 30 OF 2025

2. In consequence to report of one Sushil Gopinath Garje dated

11-10-2021, Amalner Police Station, District Beed, registered Crime

No.213 of 2021 for offence under Sections 306 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) on allegation of abetment to commit suicide

by informant's father namely Gopinath by consuming insectiside.

Allegations were that, in the backdrop of quarrel taking place on

04-10-2021 on account of digging well, threats were issued by

accused persons named in the FIR and deceased consumed

insecticide under mental stress and tension. Resultantly, on said

report, above crime is registered against in all five persons including

revision petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would point out that

there is false implication. According to him, by no stretch of

imagination, alleged occurrence of previous day would amount to

abetment to commit suicide. He pointed out that, in fact there was

non-cognizable case reported by revisions petitioner's son with police

machinery and as such, recourse to law was taken. That, general and

vague allegations are made about issuing life threats and raising

quarrels.

{3} REVN 30 OF 2025

4. He next submitted that, investigation was completed but

nothing incriminating has surfaced in the same. On the contrary,

there was said to be suicide note, but it was recovered and handed

over two days after FIR rendering doubt about its authenticity and

credibility.

5. He further pointed out that, in fact five persons are named in

the FIR and this Court was pleased to quash proceedings against four

of them by order dated 23-11-2022. It is pointed out that, at that

time, present revision petitioner had withdrawn said application on

his own accord. However, he invited attention of this Court to the

observations made in the above order, more particularly, paragraph

nos.11, 12 and 15. Consequently, in the light of above, it is his

submission that there is no incriminating material to face trial and

hence, finding fault in the impugned order passed by learned trial

court, he prays to allow revision.

6. In answer to above, both learned APP as well as learned

counsel for complainant would point out that present revision

petitioner had initially instituted proceedings for quashment, but has

withdrawn and no liberty was sought to move for discharge.

{4} REVN 30 OF 2025

Therefore, very discharge application was not maintainable. They

further pointed out that, accused persons are direct cause of suicide

by father of informant. That, there was no other reason. According

to him, there were series of instances of threats and only because of

the same, suicide has been committed by father of the informant.

Moreover, according to them, there is suicide note and report of

handwriting expert is awaited. Therefore, they justify the order of

rejection by learned trial court and urged for similar treatment.

7. Heard. Perused the papers.

8. Present application being discharge application, before

adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and proper to spell

out settled legal position while considering discharge application

under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled position

that, at such stage, Court dealing with such application is merely

expected to determine existence of prima facie material for

proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons face trial.

Material gathered during investigation is expected to be sifted with

limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to

proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor meticulous {5} REVN 30 OF 2025

analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the only duty of

Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie material suggesting

existence of essential ingredients for the offences, which are alleged

to be committed.

Above position has been time and again reiterated since the

cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of

India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a

decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of

Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of

Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.

(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency

(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar

Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.

9. Sifted the chargesheet with limited purpose. FIR dated

11-10-2021 seems to be at the instance of one Sushil Gopinath Garje

and substance of the FIR is that, informant resides at Pune whereas

his parents reside at native village Patsara. According to him, in said

village, they have 11 acres land, which has a ridge which divides land

of neighbour Bhimrao Arjun Shekade (revision petitioner). That, {6} REVN 30 OF 2025

since 2-3 years, there were quarrels on account of digging of well in

the field. According to informant, his father had requested Bhimrao

Arjun Shekade (revision petitioner), Ankush Mahadeo Garje, Balaji @

Balu Bhimrao Shekade, Bhagwat Ginyandeo Garje and Ankush

Ginyandeo Garje for taking Kharip crop aside and those persons had

issued life threats and quarreled with his father. Informant's father

had reported him said incidence on telephone and he used to give

understanding to his father. On similar count, there was quarrel with

above named persons in the evening of 04-10-2021 during which

accused persons had visited house of his father and issued life

threats. Even this incident was reported to him on telephone. On

05-10-2021, informant claims to have come to his native and further

claims to have learnt from his father about complaint filed by Balaji

Bhimrao Shekade at Police Station. Upon which, informant again

claims to have given understanding to his father. On 06-10-2021,

when he and accused persons went to resolve the dispute at Police

Station, Amalner and at that time, his father was in the house.

According to informant, because of the quarrel, his father was in

tension. That, when Bhimrao Shekade refused to resolve the dispute

and went away, he came back home from Police Station. That time

he found his father lying in the doors and according to him, his {7} REVN 30 OF 2025

father consumed Rogor insecticide kept on the tin roof. That time his

mother was in the field and father was alone and therefore, he

passed information to Ambadas Garje and thereafter, shifted his

father to hospital.

10. Thus, occurrence dated 04-10-2021 and 5-10-2021 involving

quarrel between deceased and accused, alleged consumption is of

06-10-2021. From the report itself, it is emerging that deceased

committed suicide while he was alone at native village namely

Patsara. In fact the revision petitioner against whom allegations are

levelled was in the very company of informant at Amalner Police

Station which is miles away. There is nothing to show that accused

had come in contact with deceased till evening of 06-10-2021.

11. Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306

of the IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments,

Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has reiterated that, apart

from inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has to

be mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is also

time and again clarified while dealing with above provision.

Few cases that could be named are, Ramesh Kumar v. State of {8} REVN 30 OF 2025

Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as well as M. Mohan v. The

State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

MANU/SC/0161/2011, wherein standard of "instigation" is

elaborately dealt and discussed.

Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has reinforced "proximate trigger" doctrine emphasizing that

there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the

conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment,

without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the

charge.

12. Here, keeping the above settled law in mind and contents of

report on the basis of which complaint is lodged, it is noticed that

sweeping allegations are made against five persons including revision

petitioner for issuing life threats. On the other hand, there seems to

be NC at the instance of son of one of the accused with Police Station

on 05-10-2021 i.e. a day earlier to the incident. Suicide is committed

on evening of next date i.e. on 06-10-2021. When neither revision

revision petitioner nor other accused are directly in touch with {9} REVN 30 OF 2025

deceased so as to hold abetment, inducement or instigation, it would

be unjust and improper to connect them to the alleged consumption.

What informant is precisely alleging that, because of previous

quarrels and threats, his father was under tension. Moreover,

accused persons themselves seem to have taken recourse to law

enforcing agencies one day prior to alleged suicide. In proximity to

said consumption, accused are no were around to deceased nor have

met deceased on the said day so as to connect them.

13. Apart form statements of witnesses, investigating machinery

seems to have laid hands on suicide note, but as pointed out, it is

shown to be recovered and seized after one day of FIR. This Court is

in receipt of report from Analyzer vide communication dated 02-01-

2025 annexing the very opinion of handwriting expert and he has

opined on 02-01-2025 that, "It has not been possible to express any

definite opinion as regards to the identity or otherwise of the

enclosed writing marked as Exh.Q-1 in comparison with the enclosed

writings, marked as Exs.N-1 to N-17, for sufficient individual

identifying characteristics for comparison" . Therefore, even said

piece of incriminating evidence as per prosecution, is of no avail to it.

{10} REVN 30 OF 2025

14. Learned counsel for informant sought reliance on judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

2012 (9) SCC 460 and Another, which is on the legal landscape on

the point of scope of revision, framing of charges, discharge, and

scope of 482 and there is no dispute over said legal position.

As regards to second ruling of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), facts being distinct is of no avail to the

complainant.

15. To sum up, here, essential ingredients of abetment to commit

suicide are patently missing. Out of five accused, four have already

succeeded in getting FIR as well as chargesheet quashed against

them. For said reasons, revisionist succeeds. Hence, following order

is passed :

ORDER

(I) Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(II) The order dated 01-01-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed below Exhibit 27 in Sessions Case No.94 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.

{11} REVN 30 OF 2025

(III) Application Exhibit 27 filed in Sessions Case No.94 of 2022 stands allowed. Revision petitioner stands discharged from offence under Sections 306, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.94 of 2022 (Crime No.213 of 2021 registered at Amalner Police Station, District Beed).