IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1968 OF 2024 Nilesh s/o Sahebrao Sonawane and others VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others Mr. A. D. Ostwal i/b Mr. K. D. Jadhav a/w Mr. V. L. Bhange, Advocate for applicants Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25th August, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Respondent No. 2, though served, has remained absent. On the previous date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2, and hence in order to give him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the matter was adjourned. Even today, none appears for Respondent No. 2. Consequently, the Court proceeded to hear and decide the application on its merits with the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek to quashment of the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 310/2025 arising out of Crime No. 0144/2024 registered at MIDC Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, as well as the consequent charge sheet No. 302/2024 for the offences punishable Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:38768-DB under section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the complainant Dashrath Sheshrao Wagh i.e. father of deceased Shrikant, lodged the first information report regarding the suicide of 18 year-old-son Shrikant, which occurred on 28.12.2023. On 22.11.2022, the deceased took admission in “Garudzep Academy” for police and army recruitment pre-training after seeing advertisements promising a 100% Job guarantee, for which the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,44,500/- towards fees and mess charges. The complainant alleged that during his stay, the present applicants subjected the deceased to severe physical assault. There were poor living conditions, delayed meals over fee disputes and mental harassment, including taunting him to “go die” if he failed to secure a job. On 28.12.2023, after calling his mother in distress, deceased committed suicide by hanging on the academy premises. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the allegations in the FIR are considered in its entirety, the facts fail to disclose a prima facie case or substantiate the contentions raised by the complainant. He contended that routine reprimands, scolding, or demanding prescribed fees do not amount to direct instigation to commit suicide. Additionally, there was no immediate or proximate action by the present applicants at the time of alleged incident to show that they instigating drove the deceased to take their own life. He further Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt 2 of 5 highlighted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of over 55 days in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident occurred on 28.12.2023 whereas the FIR was lodged on 22.02.2024. Further, he argued that this deliberate silence with the complete absence of mens rea, which demonstrates that the present first information report are a result of an afterthought and the allegations in present FIR are nothing but a colorable addition aimed at the tarnishing the Garudzep Academy’s reputation. Thus, continuing these criminal proceedings would be a clear abuse of the process of law. He further argued that in similar matter i.e., in Criminal Application No. 1966/2024, the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the proceeding against the applicants. Furthermore, Learned Counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on following judgments:- 1. State of Andhra Pradesh v/s Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, 2. M. Mohan v/s State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1238, 3. State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604. 4. Ayyub v/s State of U.P., (2025) 3 SCC 334 5. Mahendra Awase v/s. State of M.P. (2025) 4 SCC 801 6. Prabhat Kumar Mishra v/s State of U.P. (2024) 3 SCC 665 7. Naresh Kumar v/s State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 417 8. Mohit Singhal v/s State of Uttarakhand (2024) 1 SCC 417 9. Kashibai v/s State of Karnataka (2023) 15 SCC 751 10. Mariano Anto Bruno v/s State of Tamilnadu (2023) 15 SCC 560 11. Geo Varghese v/s State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC 144 12. Kanchan Sharma v/s State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 806 13. Arnab Goswami v/s State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 14. Gurcharan Singh v/s State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 15. M. Mohan v/s State (2011) 2 SCC 626 Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt 3 of 5 16. Madan Mohan Singh v/s State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 17. Ramesh Kumar v/s State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 18. Swamy Prahaladas v/s State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438. 5. Learned APP submitted that upon perusal of the charge-sheet and on instructions from the Investigation Officer, no evidence has been collected during the course of investigation to indicate any telephonic communication between the deceased Shrikant and his parents on 28.12.2023, prior to the deceased committing suicide. He further submitted that although correspondence appears to have been initiated during investigation with regard to the Call Detail Records (CDR) no concrete evidence or statement could be placed on record in that regard for want of specific instructions. Consequently, there is no material on record to show any proximate communication between the deceased and his family members on the date of the alleged incident. 6. Perused record. During the course of hearing, a specific query was made to learned APP to point out any evidence collected during the course of investigation regarding the date on which the deceased committed suicide he had any contact with the informant. There is no such evidence available on record. To make out a case of abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of direct instigation or intentional conduct compelling the deceased to take their own life. Routine administrative actions, scolding, or demanding academy fees do Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt 4 of 5 not constitute abetment. Moreover there is no proximity in the alleged acts of applicants and action of commission of suicide by deceased. In similar set of allegations, another criminal proceeding against applicants came to be quashed by Division Bench of this Court. 7. In the absence of supporting evidence or any proximate act by the applicants, no prima facie case is made out against them. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, criminal proceedings must be quashed where the material collected during investigation fails to disclose a prima facie offence. Considering the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Application No. 1966/2024, permitting the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants on unsubstantiated allegations would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 8. Hence, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, ‘G’ and ‘H’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt 5 of 5