apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.61 OF 2021 1. Smt. Urvashi wd/o Dhammadip Chimankar, before marriage Urvashi d/o Granthapal Meshram, Aged about 24 Years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Parsodi Gopal Nagar, Post, Taluka and District Nagpur. 2. Smt. Sharda wd/o Granthpal Meshram, Aged about 55 Years, Occupation : Household, 3. Akash s/o Granthapal Meshram, Aged about 26 Years, Occupation : Private Job, Both applicant 2 and 3 are R/o. Near Arun Patil, Pachpawali Barse Nagar, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, S. O. Nagpur, Taluka and District Nagpur. 4. Ashwin s/o Wasudeo Rangari, Aged about 40 Years, Occupation : Carpenter, R/o. Plot No.47, Akhil Wishwabharti Society, Revti Nagar, Besa, Taluka and District Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur (City), Taluka and District Nagpur. 2. Smt. Nita w/o Vilas Meshram, Aged about 38 Years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Parshivani Nayakud, Post Parshivni, Taluka and District Nagpur – 441105. .... NON-APPLICANTS 2025:BHC-NAG:14554-DB apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (2) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Jitendra Matale, Counsel for the applicants through video conferencing. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 11.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.12.2025 JUDGMENT : (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.264/2020 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur (City), District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.5338/2025 pending before the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the application are as under: Smt. Nita Vilas Meshram has lodged a report at Ranapratap Nagar Police Station on an allegation that the apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (3) deceased Dhammadip was her brother and applicant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and applicant Nos.3 and 4 are also the brother-in-law of the deceased. As per the allegations, the brother of the non-applicant No.2 got married with the applicant No.1 and residing with applicant No.1. There used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 was harassing the deceased and the deceased was disturbed due to the harassment and he committed suicide by hanging himself on 17.10.2019. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants. 5. After registration of the crime, the wheels of the investigation started rotating. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has visited the alleged spot of incident, drawn the spot panchnama, recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses and also seized the suicide note which was found during the house search panchnama of the house of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, he has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants/accused. 6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Matale for the applicants, who submitted that as far as the abetment at the hands of the present applicants is concerned, even the suicide note nowhere discloses that the harassment or the act on the part of the apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (4) applicants was such that which driven the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that even accepting that there was no cordial relationship between the deceased and the applicant No.1, which is not sufficient to attract the offence of abetment against the applicant No.1. There is no mens rea on the part of the applicant No.1 apparent on the face of record and therefore, the charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. He also invited our attention towards the suicidal note and submitted that even accepting the suicidal note as it is, there is no positive act on the part of the applicant No.1 and therefore, no case is made out under Section 306 of the IPC. 7. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that at the time of the quashing of the First Information Report what requires to be seen is whether there was requisite mens rea and obviously it is a matter of evidence. A strong suspicion is also sufficient to proceed against the applicants. He submitted that overall material shows that the applicants created certain circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The suicidal note also discloses the nature of the harassment which was suffered by the deceased and therefore, the prima facie case is made out against the present applicants. At this stage, the Court is required to evaluate the material documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (5) taken at their face value disclose existence of ingredients or not. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during the investigation is sufficient to proceed against the present applicants and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 8. Before entering into merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are consideration as far as the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. 9. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code 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. 10. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (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— apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (6) 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 B 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. 11. Section 108 of the Indian Penal 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. apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (7) 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 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, apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (8) 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 dwelling-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 apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (9) 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 C 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. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder. 12. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 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. apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (10) 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's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide. 13. 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. 14. It is well settled that in order to amount to 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 absent. In order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act. 15. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police and anr, SLP [Cri] Diary No. 39981/2022, decided on 30.01.2024 relied by learned counsel for the applicants, by referring the various earlier apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (11) 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 the Indian Penal Code 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. State of 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 must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (12) 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 apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (13) 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 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 apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (14) 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.” 16. In the light of above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provisions what is to be shown is that the accused/applicants have actually instigated or aided to the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect incitement the commission of suicide apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (15) 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. 17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the allegation against the present applicant No.1 and the deceased were husband and wife. There was discord between the said relationship and due to the harassment at the hands of the present applicant No.1, he has committed suicide. The suicide note which was seized from the house of the deceased is perused which is reproduced as under: “ eh /kEenhi euksgj fpeudj fygwu nsrks dh ekÖ;k vkRegR;k e/;s ekÖ;k lkG;kpk vkf.k ek>k ck;dkspk vkf.k frpk HkkVO;kp gkr vkgs frpk HkkVok lV;kps vkf.k eWpps dke djrks vkf.k frpk vkbZpk vkf.k frpk ekehpk gkr vkgs vxj eh esyks dh ;kauk rqEgh lDr ltk n;k vkf.k ;kauk QDr Qk’khph ltk n;k ekÖ;k ej.;kps dkj.k QDr gsp yksd vkgsr vkf.k ek>s ?kj eh esY;koj ek>k ckbZdksp ukgh >ky ikfgts gh rqeP;k Hkjo’;koj lksMy vksds ekÖ;k ej.;kp dkj.k QDr ek>h ckbZdks vkf.k frpk Hkkm vkf.k frpk HkkVok vkgs R;kauk lDr dkjokbZ goh vkgs vkf.k ekÖ;k ck;dks cn~ny dkj.k dh frps ckgsjP;k yksdka’kh voS/k laca/k vkgsr uko ckny vkf.k nsok ;kpkalh vkgsr vkf.k ek>s ?kj QDr ekÖ;k ckgh.khP;k eqykpk ukokoj d:u n;k ekÖ;k ckbZdksyk ek> ?kj n;k udks gh fouarh-” apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (16) It reveals that the allegation against the applicant No.1 is that she is having illicit relations with other persons. As far as the nature of the allegations is concerned, except the contention in the suicidal note, there is no other material collected during the investigation to show that due to the illicit relations between the applicant No.1 and any other person, the harassment was caused to the deceased. Thus, even accepting that the applicant No.1 was having any illicit relations with anybody, there is nothing on record to show that she has in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. No single instance is narrated by the deceased in the said suicide note to show that due to the specific instances, there was no alternative before him but to commit suicide. 18. In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka, [MANU/SC/1266/2024] wherein while dealing with the provisions under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code extensively it is held that the very first clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment. In paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment it is observed that even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (17) cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While dealing with the situation on the basis of the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love affair between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. 19. The crucial word in Section 306 IPC is ‘abets’. ‘Abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. There are two explanations to Section 107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (18) attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 clarifies that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act. 20. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification of Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 IPC says is that whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. 21. By referring the decision of Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then ‘instigation’ may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (19) intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be ‘instigation’.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court further refers the judgment of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This Court summed up the constituents of ‘abetment’ as under and laid down the constituents as follows: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. 23. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the deceased and present applicant No.1 were husband and wife. The discord was there in the said matrimonial relationship. As per the allegations, in the suicide note, the applicant No.1 was having illicit relations with somebody else, but except bare apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (20) words, no such instances are narrated by the deceased in the suicide note to show that there was any illicit relationship between the applicant No.1 and some other person. The suicide note nowhere discloses that what was the positive act on the part of the deceased which drove him to commit suicide. Moreover, the suicide committed by the deceased/ victim is not immediate result of the act of the applicant No.1. Thus, there was no proximity or nexus between the acts of the applicant No.1 and suicide by the deceased. Merely because the present applicant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and there was a discord between them is not sufficient to infer that the deceased has committed suicide due to the discord between the applicant No.1 and the deceased. 24. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and applying it to the undisputed facts of the present case indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the case in hand. The material appears to be insufficient for subjecting the applicants to trial. On the basis of the nature of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the material is sufficient for the prosecution to establish the charge against the applicants. In such circumstances, subjecting the applicants to trial on the basis of the above said evidence would not only be a mere formality but also abuse of the process of law. apl.61.2021.Judgment.odt (21) 25. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.264/2020 registered with Police Station Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur (City), District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.5338/2025 pending before the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicants. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.