28-REVN-319-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.319 OF 2023 Abhijit Ashok Talwalkar ….Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vinayak Garge with Mr. Aamir A. Qureshi, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Kurat Ladak Kondhari, HC, Palghar Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order dated 27th April 2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Palghar, whereby the discharge application of the applicant was rejected. 2. It is prosecution's case that the deceased Kamalakar alias Suresh Patil committed suicide by hanging himself. It is alleged that he committed suicide due to mental and physical pressure by the applicant, and the suicide note found after his death mentions the name of the applicant and other co-accused. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The agreement in respect of transfer of shops of the deceased in the name of the applicant's father was executed in the year 2005, and the deceased committed suicide in the year 2016, which is after 11 years. The deceased had executed an MOU in favour of the SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.06.23 11:17:25 +0530 28-REVN-319-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam applicant and his father, relinquishing his right in respect of two shops. On the day of the incident, the applicant had no reason to harass the deceased. Nothing is produced in the chargesheet against the applicant to show his involvement in the crime but this fact was not considered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, and has passed the impugned order, which is erroneous; and requested to allow the application. He relied on following judgments : 1. Rajesh versus State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359 2. Prakash and ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and anr., 2024 INSC 1020. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the deceased was the tenant of the applicant's father and was holding two shops. The applicant and his father wanted to develop the said building, and accordingly they agreed to give new shops in the newly constructed building as per the agreement dated 30th March 2005 after reconstruction of the building. The applicant avoided giving ownership of the newly constructed shops to the deceased. It is alleged that the applicant forcefully executed an MOU with the deceased by compelling him to sell two shops. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused were demanding 14 lakhs from the deceased, which was given as a hand loan. Due to ₹ continuous mental pressure by the applicant and co-accused, the deceased committed suicide by writing a suicide note. In the suicide note, there are specific allegations against the applicant, which show his involvement in the crime. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. Page 2 of 3 28-REVN-319-2023 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused impugned order. Admittedly, the deceased was the tenant in the applicant's building. It was assured by the applicant to the deceased that he would provide two shops after reconstruction of new building. It appears from the record that after reconstruction of the new building, the applicant forcefully compelled the deceased to sell those two shops. It is alleged that thereafter the applicant and co-accused were harassing the deceased for returning the amount of 14 lakhs, ₹ which was given to him as a hand loan. In the suicide note, there are specific allegations against the applicant that he and the co-accused were harassing the deceased for returning the amount and interest on it, and that he is committing suicide due to the harassment by the applicant and co-accused. 6. At the threshold, it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the applicant are groundless. From the documents produced on record and the charge sheet, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The facts of the cited cases and the present case are different, hence not applicable. 7. In view of the above, I pass following order: O R D E R (I) The criminal revision application is dismissed. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)