1 13-wp-549-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 549 OF 2026 Suresh S/o Devrao Kamdi Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Ms. Harsha Mehta Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.R.Lule, APP for the respondent/State. Shri K.Y.Mandpe, Advocate for the respondent no.2. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-8 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2024, thereby dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner/son of the deceased Satyabhama. 2. The basic contention of Ms. Mehta Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/complainant is that the learned trial Court as well as learned District Judge has failed to take into consideration the evidence putforth by the complainant thereby pointing SKNair 2 13-wp-549-26.odt out the evidence which was necessary to be considered, to come to a conclusion as to whether there was any abetment on the part of the accused, who was to drive Satyabhama to commit suicide. Ms. Mehta Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/complainant has filed a protest petition relying upon the statement of one Dr. Khandelwal and also upon the other evidence including the evidence of the transcript of the video clips and audio clips which shows that there were serious quarrels which has taken place between the accused and the deceased, which has finally led the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, according to the petitioner/complainant evidence is sufficient enough to draw a conclusion that a case is made out to prosecute the accused under the provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution having failed to collect the necessary evidence has filed a C-Summary report which came to be mechanically accepted by the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the evidence putforth by the petitioner/complainant herein. Thus, according to the petitioner there is a serious error which needs to be corrected under the extra ordinary jurisdiction by this Court. SKNair 3 13-wp-549-26.odt 3. Ms. Mehta Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has earlier approached this Court allowing the intervention application of the accused and also on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court confirming the order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the objection/protest petition, without any reasons. This Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 has set aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court and thereafter remanded back the matter to pass a fresh order by recording detailed reasons for upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Ms. Mehta Joshi, learned counsel submits that though this Court has directed that the matter to be decided a fresh even on allowing the intervention of the respondent/accused, the learned revisional Court has only passed an order on merits of the revision without deciding the necessity to allow the accused to intervene, as has been directed by this Court. She, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in not complying the order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 616 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025. On merits, she further submits that the revisional Court has again failed to take into consideration the evidence relied upon by the complainant i.e. SKNair 4 13-wp-549-26.odt transcript of the video as well as audio clip as well as the evidence of several other witnesses like Dr. Khandelwal. She, therefore, submits that impugned order passed by the revisional Court is erroneous which call for interference of this Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction and hence same may be quashed and set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to reject the ‘C’ Summary filed by the police authorities and direct the prosecution to file charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 5. As against this Shri Mandpe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that after conducting the detailed investigation it was found that the evidence is not sufficient enough so as to file a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence collected by the prosecution was falling short of the ingredients required for making out an offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, as such the police authorities has filed the ‘C’ Summary report. The learned trial Court after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/complainant who has filed objection/protest petition has SKNair 5 13-wp-549-26.odt rightly come to the conclusion that no offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out, as such rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant herein. 6. Shri Mandpe, learned counsel and learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that Satyabhama died due to poisoning. However, if the material collected by the investigation is accepted to be true, even then an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal code was not made out. Learned trial Court has rightly accepted the ‘C’ Summary filed by the prosecution and has rejected the protest petition. There is no error committed by the revisional court in upholding the order passed by the trial Court. The revisional Court has also once again gone into the details of the evidence collected by the prosecution and has found that the trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the ‘C’ Summary and the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant came to be rejected. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained. 7. I have gone through the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 616 of 2025 as well as the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-8 and Additional SKNair 6 13-wp-549-26.odt Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2024. The perusal of the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court would show that in so far as the objection for allowing the intervention application of the accused is concerned, this Court has categorically held that the revisional court has rightly permitted the respondent no.2 i.e. accused to intervene in the revision relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others reported in 2012(10) SCC 517. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the intervention application was again directed to be decided appears to be misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The learned revisional Court has rightly decided upon the merits afresh as directed by this Court on 13.10.2025, by observing in detail the evidence collected by the prosecution and the ingredients necessary for establishing an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Revisional Court has gone into detail the evidence collected by the prosecution and the statement recorded during the course of the investigation including the statement of brother Dinesh, father Deorao, Sisters Anita Revatkar and Sunita Yeole, daughter Bhagyalaxmi, maid servant Chhaya Parihar, SKNair 7 13-wp-549-26.odt neighbours Pratibha Bhute and Prabhavati Bhoyar, some other relatives, Dr. Srijan Khandelwal. Further evidence of the petitioner that the deceased being admitted in Dr. Khandelwal hospital is also considered and it was found that the evidence collected by the prosecution suggests the ordinary quarrel being taken place between the deceased Satyabhama and the accused Smita. The same was not found to be sufficient enough so as to make out the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code which necessarily involves the abetment of the commission of suicide in immediate proximity of the incident. There was no such act which was in close proximity of the date of the incident of consuming poison by the deceased Satyabhama. brought on record by the prosecution so as to establish the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court has gone into detailed the evidence collected by the prosecution and did not find fault in the ‘C’ Summary before filed by the Officer Incharge of the Hudkeshwar Police Station in connection with Crime No. 363 of 2019. The evidence relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. the transcripts of the video clips and audio clips, was duly considered not only by the learned trial Court but also by the learned Revisional Court, wherein both the SKNair 8 13-wp-549-26.odt learned lower Courts below have opined that the same at the most establishes the daily quarrel between the deceased as well as accused Smita. However, the said evidence, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of instigation or abetment so as to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 was pleased to observe as under : - “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order. ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 15:32:28