[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vijay Sitaram Zoting vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps ... on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5118-DB
1 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1167 OF 2025
1. Vijay Sitaram Zoting,
Age 55 years, Occ: Daily wages,
2. Vinod Gangaram Rajurkar,
Age 50 years, Occ. Daily wages,
Both R/o Pandharkawada, Taluka-
Kelapur, Yavatmal Maharashtra. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Pandharkawada, District
Yavatmal, Maharashtra.
2. Vaishali Mangesh Wasekar,
R/o Ranapratap Ward,
Pandharkawada, Tal.- Kelapur,
Dist. Yavatmal, Maharashtra.
NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.M. Lodha, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 30th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 53.APL.1167-2025.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.1/State.
3. None appears for the Non-applicant No.2 though
service of notice is there.
4. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the First Information Report in
connection with Crime No.622/2025 registered with Police
Station Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No. 31/2025
pending before the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Kelapur.
5. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the present Application are as under:
3 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
5(i). The crime came to be registered on the basis of a
report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2 wife of the deceased
on an allegation that she was residing alongwith her in-laws,
two children and her husband deceased Mangesh Kisan
Wasekar. Her husband was dealing with work as Civil
Contractor. The Applicants were known to him and they
frequently used to come at their house and there was a money
transaction between the deceased and the present Applicants.
The present Applicants have obtained Rs. 10-12 Lakhs from him
and were not returned the same and whenever the deceased
used to demand the money from them, they used to say that
they would not return the money and used to quarrel with him.
On that count, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging
himself in the complex of Mangesh Shedam in Athawadi Bazar.
On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime
against the present Applicants.
5(ii). After registration of the crime, during investigation
the Investigating Officer has seized the mobile phone of the
deceased as well as recorded various statements of witnesses.
During the examination of mobile phone of the deceased one
4 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
video clip was found by the Investigating Agency which
discloses the communication by the deceased showing that it
was the present Applicants who have not repaid his amount and
same action to be taken against them. On the basis of the said
investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the
present Applicants.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who
submitted that as far as the monetary transaction is concerned
except the bare statement of the deceased there is no material
to connect the present Applicants to show that they have
obtained the money. The mobile phone of one of the Applicants
i.e. the Applicant No.1 was seized during investigation and on
inspection of the said mobile phone, nothing was found by the
investigating agency showing that there was any online money
transaction between the present Applicant No.1 and the
deceased. He invited my attention towards the mobile
verification panchnama of the Applicant No.1, wherein it is
specifically mentioned that there was no such transaction
revealed from the inspection of the mobile phone. Thus, he
submitted that, initially the Marg Report was filed. The
5 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
statement of the wife was recorded, wherein she has not raised
any suspicion against anybody and thereafter on 16.07.2025 the
FIR came to be lodged i.e. after approximately 45 days against
the present Applicants which is afterthought. He submitted that,
even accepting the allegations as it is no offence is made out
against the present Applicants as there is no proximity or nexus
between the act, which is alleged to be committed by the
present Applicants and the committal of the suicide by the
deceased. He submitted that, the alleged incident has taken
place on 02.06.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on
16.07.2025. The statements of witnesses also not disclose that
there was any monetary transaction between the deceased and
the present Applicants. The statements of the accounts are
collected during the investigation and he submitted that, the
statements of the accounts though showing some transactions
between them but which is not sufficient to infer that there was
an abetment at the hands of the present Applicants as no exact
act or positive act is narrated by any of the witnesses to attract
the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC (Section 108 of
BNS). In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.
6 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contentions and submitted that, considering that there was a
money transaction between the present Applicants and the
deceased, there was an abetment at the hands of the present
Applicants as they have not repaid the amount and there was
financial constrains on the deceased, and therefore, the
deceased has committed suicide. Thus, the act of the present
Applicants not paying the amount which is obtained by them as
hand loan, itself is sufficient to commit suicide by the deceased,
and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. In view of
that, the Application deserves to be rejected.
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that, there was a monetary
transaction between the Applicants and the deceased. It is
further apparent that, the Applicants allegedly have obtained
some amount from the deceased and it was not repaid and that
was the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. It is
submitted by the learned APP that, there was a financial
constrains on the said deceased and due to the said transactions
there was no alternative before the deceased to commit suicide.
7 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
On perusal of the recitals of the FIR and the statement of the
wife of the deceased as well as various statements of witnesses
nowhere it reveals that as due to the non-repayment of the
amount by the present Applicants there was a financial
constrains on the deceased and there was no alternative before
the deceased but to commit suicide, and therefore, the deceased
has committed suicide. The prosecution has relied upon one clip
which was recorded in the mobile phone of the deceased. On
perusal of the translation of the said clip it reveals that it was
the clip recorded wherein the deceased was found saying "vTtq ys
ikBoq ikBoq ek;s larqyu [kjkc dsys vTtq HkkbZ " rlsp R;kuarj nqljh OghMhvks Dyhi thph MhVsYl
ikfgyh vlrk video_20250602_092241,Time - 02/06/25, 9:23am, size- 43.50 MB,
1080x1920,30 FPS 00:20, Parameters vivo Y56 5G, Path - internal storage/DCIM/
Camera/video-20250602-092241.mp4 vls vkBGqu vkys- rlsp R;ke/khy OghMhvks Dyhi
c?khryh os ,sdyh vlrk R;ke/;s e`rd gk Lorkgk ejkBhr oDrO; djhr vkgs dh ^^ ;kpsoj dkjokbZ
djk rqEgh fotq >ksVhax] fouksn jktqjdj mQZ MsOghM ;kapsoj dkjokbZ djk gs ek>s 10 yk[kkps ojps
iSls [kkmu vkgs- eyk iSls fnys ukgh eys ;s;u Qloqu Vkdys**
9. Thus, this recording also nowhere shows that there
was a financial constrains on the deceased, and therefore, the
deceased has committed suicide. Thus, as far as the offence of
the abetment is concerned, from the statements of the
witnesses, admittedly, nothing reveals to show that some act
8 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
was committed by the present Applicants, and therefore, the
deceased has committed suicide.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it
is necessary to see what are the considerations for considering
the application for quashing of the FIR. As far as the law in
regard to the offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned,
question will remain whether repayment of money from the
present Applicants, which is sufficient reason for the deceased
to commit suicide.
11. 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."
12. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads
thus:
9 53.APL.1167-2025.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."
13. 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
10 53.APL.1167-2025.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.
11 53.APL.1167-2025.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."
14. 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.
12 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
15. 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 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
13 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
18. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police & Anr., SLP [Cri] Diary No. 39981/2022,
decided on 30.01.2024, relied by learned Counsel for the
Applicants, by referring the various earlier decisions, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the physical relationship over a
considerable period of time was out of mutual love between the
appellant and the deceased and not based on the promise of
marriage. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered its earlier decision in the case of Kamlakar Vs. State
of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011, decided on
12.10.2023 and explained 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
14 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
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
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
15 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
19. 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 the Indian Penal Code. 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
16 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
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 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."
17 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
20. 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
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.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar
Vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383 referred in
Prabhu Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police
Anr., (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant,
in para No.20 has examined different meaning of 'instigation',
18 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
which reads as, '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'.
22. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and
108 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 Indian Penal Code.
19 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
23. After going through the catena of decisions, it
reveals that the test that the Court should adopt in these types
of cases is to make 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. To attract the provisions what is to be shown is
that the accused have actually instigated or aided in the victim
act of committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect
incitement to the commission of suicide and the accused must
be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation
or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
24. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that
there was a money transaction between the deceased and the
present Applicants. As per the allegations, the present
Applicants were not repaying the amount, and therefore, the
deceased has committed suicide. Thus, there is nothing on
record to show that, due to some act of the present Applicants,
the deceased constrains or compels to commit suicide. On the
contrary, it is apparent that, one video recording was found in
20 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
the mobile phone of the deceased which only shows that the
present Applicants are not repaying the money, and therefore,
some action is to be taken against them. As far as the allegation
regarding that the present Applicants were saying that they will
not repay the amount, which is not substantiated by any
statement or any material. Thus, as far as the abetment at the
hands of the present Applicants are concerned, which is not
substantiated by any material to show that, there was no
alternative before the deceased to commit suicide due to the act
of the present Applicants.
25. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108 and 306 of IPC
and applying it to the undisputed facts of the present case
indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the case
in hand. Thus, the material appears to be insufficient or
subjecting the Applicants to trial. The investigation papers
nowhere reveals that there was any positive act on the part of
the present Applicants and due to which the deceased has
committed suicide. In view of that, the Application deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
21 53.APL.1167-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 622/2025 registered with Police Station
Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Sections 108 read with Section
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the
consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing Sessions Case No. 31/2025 pending before
the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Kelapur, are hereby
quashed and set aside to the extent of the present
Applicants.
26. 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: 01/04/2026 18:30:10
