5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2026 Pramod Ramesh More ...Applicant/s VERSUS Tulinj Police Station and anr. ...Respondent/s WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2025 Rahul Basantilal Jain ...Applicant/s VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2026 Mr. Narsingh Champalal Parmar Ram ...Applicant/s VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2025 Vaibhav Shashimohan Awasthi ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Amit A. Katarnaware (thr. VC) a/w. Mr. Aditya A. Katarnaware a/w. Mr. Nitesh Lokhande, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Revn. Application No. 171/2026. Mr. Prem Kumar Pandey a/w. Sneha Mishra a/w. Kajal Mishra a/w. Devendra Agrawal a/w. Rishabh Jain, Advocates for Applicant in Cri. Revn. Application Nos. 16/2025 and 83/2026. Dr. Vaishav Awasthi, Party in person in Cri. Revn. Application No. 536/2025 present. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vinay V. Nair a/w. Mr. Venkatesh Jairam & Ms. Riddhi P. Tendulkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _________________________________________________________________ VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.10.01 18:15:27 +0530 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants in respective Revision Applications, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in these Revision Applications is to the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Vasai, whereby the Ld. Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge applications of the Applicants. As all the Applicants have challenged the same order, hence, I am deciding the Revision Applications by this common order. 3. It is prosecution's case that the deceased was working as a teacher in the private class named PVR Science Hub Classes run by the Applicants. It is alleged that on the assurance of the Applicants, the deceased had given Rs. 20,00,000/- to the Applicants for becoming a partner in PVR classes. But they neither added him as a partner in their classes, nor allowed him to take classes at any other places. Furthermore, they threatened him that if he takes classes at other places, they will implicate him in a false police case. Due to acts of the Applicants, on 08.11.2019, the deceased committed suicide by coming under a train at Vasai Railway Station. 4. It is contention of learned counsels for the Applicants and party in person that no evidence is produced on record to show that the 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam deceased had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the Applicants for becoming a partner in the said classes. Learned counsel further submitted that the WhatsApp chats between deceased and the First Informant (brother of deceased) indicate that deceased was frustrated and unable to teach properly and out of frustration, he has committed suicide. Learned counsels further submitted that the statement of Ms. Anupama Singh (fiancée of the deceased) shows that he was frustrated and had suicidal thoughts and tendencies even before joining the classes of the Applicants. He has not referred anything against the Applicants and there is no reference of Rs.20,00,000/- given to the Applicants. 5. Learned counsels further submitted that deceased has not left suicide note behind him. It is not clear whether death of the deceased was suicidal or accidental. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was frustrated because the students were unhappy with his teaching. It is clear that he committed suicide out of frustration and not by instigation or abetment by the Applicants. It is further submitted that to prove the abetment of suicide - instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid is required. From the documents and evidence produced on record, there is nothing to show that Applicants abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. But these facts are not considered by the Learned Sessions Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous. Learned counsels for the Applicants fairly submitted that deceased had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam Applicants. The Applicants and party in person have paid him Rs.12,00,000/- and that record is part of the charge-sheet and requested to allow the Revision Application. Learned counsels for the Applicants relied on: (i) Santosh Kiran Darekar V/s. State of Maharashtra (MANU/MH/2528/2016) (ii) Sanju V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/SC/0392/2002) (iii) Sanjay Kumar K. Shinde V/s. State of Maharashtra (MANU/MH/2333/2014). (iv) Union of India V/s. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 (v) Yogesh V/s. State of Maharashtra (MANU/MH/0024/2015) (vi) Sanjay Kumar Rai V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 720. (vii) Asim Shariff V/s. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148. (viii) Ram Prakash Chadha V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651. (ix) State of Orissa V/s. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 (x) M. Arjunan V/s. State (2019) 3 SCC 315. (xi) S.S. Chheena V/s. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190. (xi) State of West Bengal V/s. Indrajit Kundu (2019) 10 SCC 188. (xii) Sudhakar V/s. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 SCC 671 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam (xiii) Smt.Darshana Devi V/s. State 1995 Supp (4) SCC 126. (xiv) Waikhom Yaima Singh V/s. State of Manipur (2011) 13 SCC 125. (xv) Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2025 INSC 990 (xvi) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr AIR 2024 Supreme Court 4531. (xvii) Amit Padmakar More V/s. State of Maharashtra 2026 SCC Online Bom 3740. 6. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that deceased committed suicide due to mental harassment by the Applicants. The Applicants had taken Rs.20,00,000/- from the deceased for giving him partnership in the said classes. But in spite of taking the said amount, they did not make him a partner. They also forced the deceased to stop taking classes at other institutions and made him take extra lectures at PVR classes against his will. The aforesaid facts have been stated by the First Informant in his statement. WhatsApp chats between the deceased and his brother show that deceased was mentally tortured by the Applicants. The statement of witness Mr. Gaurishankar Dube shows that the Applicants had taken the amount from the deceased but they were not making him a partner in their classes and he was not allowed to take classes elsewhere. Subsequently, when the deceased expressed a desire to leave the classes, he was threatened with 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam implication in false criminal cases and sending defamatory letters to other coaching classes. The Applicants never intended to execute the partnership deed and kept on putting it off for various reasons, as is evident from the WhatsApp chats between the deceased and applicants. Learned APP further submitted that there is prima facie case against the Applicants. The Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the Revision Applications. Learned counsel for the First Informant relied upon the following judgments: (i) Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0963/2019 (ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap MANU/SC/0275/2021 7. I have heard all learned counsel and party in person. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a teacher in the classes of the Applicants. It is alleged that Applicants had taken Rs. 20,00,000/- from the deceased to make him a partner in their classes but did not make him a partner. The Applicants have admitted that they have received Rs.5,00,000/- from the deceased. It is contention of the Applicants that they have paid Rs.12,00,000/- to the deceased. At this stage, this Court cannot ascertain whether the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was repaid against the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- or whether it constituted the remuneration of the deceased. Statement of witness Mr. Gaurishankar Dube shows that the deceased told 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam him that Applicants had taken Rs. 20,00,000/- from him on the assurance of making him a partner but no partnership deed was drawn to that effect. In fact, the Applicants demanded more money later and forced the deceased to stop taking classes at other institutions and instead compelled him to take extra lectures in PVR classes against his wishes. In the WhatsApp chats dated 26.09.2019, 27.09.2019 and 10.10.2018 between the Complainant and deceased, the deceased informed the Complainant that if he left PVR Classes, the Applicants threatened to tarnish his reputation by circulating defamatory letters to other coaching classes and initiate false criminal proceedings against him and his family, thereby causing apprehension regarding his future employment. 8. The statement of Ms. Anupama Singh (fiancée of deceased) shows that the deceased had informed her that the Applicants had taken an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- lakhs from him on the assurance of making him a partner, but no partnership deed was executed in his favor and the amount was not returned. She further states that the deceased had expressed frustration and a desire to commit suicide. The statement of the loco pilot indicates that the incident was not an accident, as the deceased had slept on the railway track and, despite the loco pilot applying the emergency brakes, the deceased was run over and his body was cut into pieces. Thus, it cannot be said that the incident was accidental; rather, it indicates that the deceased had committed suicide. Page 7 of 9 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam 9. It is contention of the ld. Counsel for the Applicants that there was no abetment or instigation by the Applicants to the deceased to commit suicide. The offence of abetment of suicide is specified under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). It reads as under: 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. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment as under: Section 107 of IPC defines abetment 107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (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. The dictionary meaning of instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. 10. Keeping in view the above legal position, it is required to see the evidence produced by prosecution against the Applicants. It shows that 5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc Tikam due to acts of the Applicants, the deceased was frustrated and he vented his frustration with his brother, friend and fiancée. It is contention of the Applicants that WhatsApp chats of the deceased produced on record shows that he was frustrated due to other reasons. In my view, there is prima facie case against the Applicants as they admit about accepting Rs. 5 lakhs from the deceased. Statements of witnesses show that due to the acts of the Applicants, the deceased has committed suicide. 11. It is a settled principle of law that, while considering an application for discharge, the Court has to ascertain whether there is no case whatsoever against the accused. In the present case, the WhatsApp chats, statements of witnesses and financial transactions indicate a prima facie case against the Applicants. 12. I have gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for the Applicants. The facts of cited cases and present case are different. In view of above, I pass following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Applications are rejected. 13. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks stay to the order, request for stay is refused. 14. Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly. 15. All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)