IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2023 1. Akshay S/o Sharad Gawande 2. Dyaneshwar S/o Dattu Patil ....Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhaskar Tatyarao Pathrikar ...Respondents Mr. B. N. Magar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 3rd September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. In spite of service, none has caused appearance for Respondent No.2. This indicates that Respondent No.2 has no inclination to oppose present petition. Hence, matter is heard in absence of Respondent No. 2. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the present petitioners seeks quashment of FIR in connection is Crime No. 0334 of 2023 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under section 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, so also seeks quashment of charge-sheet No. 317 of 2023 filed in Sessions Case No. 289/2024 pending before Assistant Sessions Judge-4, CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 1 of 7 2026:BHC-AUG:41822-DB Aurangabad and order of issuance of process dated 01/08/2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2024. 3. The prosecution case stems from the First Information Report lodged by the informant/Respondent No.2-Bhaskar Tatyarao Pathrikar, is that in order to pay for an impending bank loan default, he borrowed a sum of 2,00,000/- ₹ from Petitioner No.1 through the mediation of Petitioner No.2, subject to repayment within two months alongside a monthly interest of 10,000/-. ₹ While the informant paid the interest for the first month online, he defaulted in the second month due to financial impediment in his business. Consequently, on 23/03/2023 at around 4:00 PM, Applicant No.1 demanded immediate payment over the phone and subsequently barged into the informant’s residence verbally abusing him. It's the further case that both the Applicants aggressively confronted the informant, threatening him and demanding that he immediately sell his house or agricultural land to clear the debt, while steadfastly refusing to vacate the premises. 4. During the ongoing harassment, the informant’s 22-year-old son- Ashutosh Pathrikar, called his father, expressing severe distress over the situation and refusing to return home until the Petitioners go away. As both Petitioners continued their coercive demands, verbal abuse, and threats, Ashutosh left on his motorcycle in anger at around 6:30 PM, after which his CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 2 of 7 mobile phone was switched off. A missing person complaint was filed and a search was conducted which was unsuccessful. Afterwards, the motorcycle was found abandoned near the Kayagaon bridge on 24/03/2023, and his body was subsequently recovered from the water on 26/03/2023 at around 11:30 AM with the assistance of the fire brigade. Thus, FIR was lodged and Chargesheet came to be filed. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this is a case instituted in order to cause harassment to present Petitioners. He submits that He draws attention of the court to FIR and Chargesheet on record to substantiate that present Petitioners cannot be said to have instigated and abetted that commission of sucide as there is absence of mens rea, so also the question of there being proximity does not arise as the alleged threats were hurled to father of the deceased i.e. informant., but the son of informant/deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, offence under section 306 cannot sustain against the Petitioners. It's further argued that there is variation and improvement in the statements of witnesses recorded as apparent from record. To support the above contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605 and the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in case CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 3 of 7 of Vacchalabai w/o Pralhad Jondhale vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 4080 of 2022. 6. Learned APP opposed the Petition. By drawing attention of the court to FIR and statements of witnesses it is argued that this shows existence of prima facie offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. It's is further submitted that on account of threats given and abuses issued by present Petitioners to the Information, which was seen by the deceased/Son of Informant, he committed suicide which clearly shows there is proximity between the alleged threats and the act of commission of suicide, so also statements of witnesses recorded indicate that deceased was in mentally distress just before he committed suicide. 7. Before going into facts of the case, it would be relevant to discuss the ingredients of section 306 of IPC. In order to prove the offence under section 306 of IPC, there must be a case of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, coupled with a proximate/live link between the act of the accused and the commission of suicide. Mere use of abusive language or casual threats, without any direct or indirect act or mens rea to push the deceased to commit suicide, would not amount to "abetment". 8. It's undisputed from the record that the alleged incident took place at CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 4 of 7 the house of the informant and it appears that the deceased was standing outside the house when the informant was abused and threatened by the present Petitioners. The deceased came to know about the abuses hurled and threats issued to the informant and in anger he left the spot of incident on a motorcycle. Thereafter, as the search conducted was unsuccessful, a missing complaint was filed on 24/03/2023. On 26/03/2023, the body of the deceased-son of information was found in the river at Kayagaon Bridge. Thus, the above indicates no abuses were hurled and no threats were issued to the deceased by the present Petitioners for them to aid or instigate the commission of suicide of the deceased. Furthermore there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were aware of the mental state of Son of Informant/Respondent No.2 and in spite of the same continues to abuse informant. There is nothing on record to show any proximity or Live Link in the threats issued to the information and deceased-son of informant committing suicide, so also there is nothing on record to indicate presence of mens rea on part of present Petitioners to abet the commission of suicide by the Deceased. 9. It might be the situation that deceased watching his father i.e. informant being abused felt exasperated and humiliated and he being in state of profound mortification at that point of time committed suicide. As such, CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 5 of 7 offence as alleged cannot be attributable to the present Petitioners for want of specific allegation of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, coupled with a proximate/live link between the act of the accused and the commission of suicide. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment tendered by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra) wherein it's held that words uttered in rage or state of emotions without thinking of consequences, in absence of mens rea, can't be deemed as act of instigation for commission of suicide. In the case in hand, abuses and threats were issued to informant and there is no evidence on record indicating instigation of part of present Petitioners in abetting or instigating the act of commission of suicide by Deceased. 11. In so far as statements of witnesses are concerned, the same indicates allegations of persistent abuses made and threats being hurled by present Petitioners to the informant. Further perusal shows the deceased was known to the present Petitioners which indicates that there is subsequent improvement in the statements. In the view of above, the veracity of statements of these witnesses cannot be considered as it will be subject matter to be substantiated before Trial court and the same does not inspire confidence in absence of corroboration. CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 6 of 7 12. From Bare perusal of investigation papers, it's evident that there is no proximate link between the Petitioners abusing and issuing threats to the information and the act of commission of suicide by the deceased-son of the informant. The Petitioners have not committed any direct or indirect act in order to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased nor there is any cogent material on record. The above indicates that the elements of offence as alleged against Present Petitioners are not made out. Prima facie even if the case of prosecution is accepted as its, no offence under section 306 of IPC is made out against present Petitioners. 13. Hence, in the view of the above discussion, application stands Allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and “B-A”. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt 7 of 7