[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Harshad Liladhar Ganjare And Another vs Satish Namdeorao Taywade And Another on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4782-DB
1 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1453 OF 2022
1. Harshad Liladhar Ganjare,
Age 24 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Roop Colony, Behind Kherde
Mangal Karayalay Nagpur Road,
Warud Tah. Warud, Dist: Amravati.
2. Tejas Sureshrao Shirbhate,
Age 24 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Behind Mahesh Readymate Road
Warud, Tah. Warud, Dist: Amravati. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. Satish Namdeorao Taywade,
Age: 50 years, Occ. Business,
R/o, Vilesh Sukad, Tah. Warud,
Dist. Amravati.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. its P.S.O. Mouda, Tah. Mouda,
Dist. Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. N.B. Bargat, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Non-applicant No.2/State.
----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the Applicants and learned APP for the
Non-applicant No.2/State.
3. Despite the service of notice to the Non-applicant
No.1 none present. The affidavit of service is filed on record,
which shows that the Non-applicant No.1 is already served on
12.03.2026.
4. The present Application is 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.6/2022 registered with Police Station
Badnera, for the offences punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2), 5 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (for short
"Act of 1989") and consequent proceeding arising out of the
same bearing Charge-sheet No.12/2022.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who
submitted that, the crime is registered on the basis of the report
3 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
lodged by the Non-applicant No.1, who is the father of the
deceased against the present Applicants on an allegation that
due to abetment at the hands of the present Applicants, the
deceased has committed suicide on 21.12.2021 at Railway
Station by consuming poison and succumbed to death. It was
further alleged that, the present Applicants and the other
co-accused were in contact with the deceased and the deceased
was abused by them, due to which, the deceased felt humiliated
and he consumed poison and thereby committed suicide. Thus,
due to the abetment at the hands of the present Applicants, the
deceased has committed suicide.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicants, submitted that
after registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has
visited the alleged spot of incident, collected the bottle of poison
which was lying near the dead body of the deceased and drawn
the spot panchnama. The cause of death of deceased is due to
the poisoning. During investigation, the Investigating Officer
has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses and none
of the statements disclose prima facie material against the
present Applicants to show that it was the present Applicants
who have abeted the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore,
4 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
the deceased has committed suicide. Even the presence of the
present Applicants is nowhere reveals on the day of incident or
there is no allegation that the present Applicants either abused
him or abeted him to commit suicide. He submitted that, even
the CDR reports nowhere shows the connection between the
present Applicants and the deceased. Thus, there is no
proximity or nexus between the alleged act of committing
suicide and the abetment at the hands of the present Applicants.
In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned APP, strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that considering the statement of one
Lakhan Sanjay Telange, which shows that on 21.12.2021 the
co-accused Ankit has visited the room of the deceased, wherein
there was altercation of words and said co-accused Ankit has
abused the deceased and thereafter the deceased has committed
suicide. The statement only shows that, when the deceased has
committed suicide, at that time the present Applicants were
present there. Except their presence, nothing is mentioned as far
as the abetment at the hands of the present Applicants are
concerned. He submitted that, if that statement is taken into
consideration, admittedly, the prima facie case is made out
5 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
against the present Applicants as they were present at the
relevant time. In view of that, the Application deserves to be
rejected.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that, as far as the present
Applicants are concerned, except the statement of Lakhan
Sanjay Telange who is showing the presence of the present
Applicants at the spot of incident, no other allegation is levelled
by any of the witnesses. The CDR reports which are collected
during the investigation also nowhere disclose any connection
between the present Applicants and the deceased. Even
accepting the statement of said Lakhan Sanjay Telange, it shows
that except the presence there is no allegation either these
Applicants have abused or there is altercation between the
deceased and the present Applicants and thereby the present
Applicants have abeted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus,
even accepting the allegations as it is as the present Applicants
were present, admittedly, no specific words or no specific act is
on record to show that in what manner the present Applicants
have abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
6 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
9. In view of that, the question remains whether mere
presence of the present Applicants is sufficient to say that the
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:
"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
7 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
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
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
8 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
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.
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
9 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.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
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.
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
10 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
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 , 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:
11 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
"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
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
12 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
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. Even in the present case, there is no any instigation
on the part of the present Applicants. Thus, there was no
proximity or nexus between the committal of the suicide and
the abetment, in fact there is absolutely no material on record
to show that the present Applicants either abused him or
13 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
humiliated him or insulted him or done any act to abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The entire allegations even taking
into consideration the statement of Lakhan Sanjay Telange to be
true to show that the present Applicants have abeted the
deceased to commit suicide. Mere their presence even accepting
it was there, no prima face case is made out against the present
Applicants. In view of that, the Application deserves to be
allowed.
19. The Applicants are further charged for the offence
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2), 5 of the Act of
1989. The entire statements of the witnesses nowhere disclose
that it was the present Applicants who have abused the
deceased on his caste, and therefore, the provisions of the Act of
1989, is also not applicable against the present Applicants.
20. By applying the parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. ,
1992 AIR 604, while considering the Application under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
14 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
21. By applying the above parameters to the facts of the
present case, admittedly, no prima facie case is made out against
the present Applicants. In view of that, the Application deserves
15 22.APL.1453-2022.JUDGMENT.odt
to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 6/2022 registered with Police Station
Badnera, for the offences punishable under Section
306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2), 5 of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989 and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Charge-sheet
No.12/2022, 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.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2026 18:57:05
