1-REVN-158-2024 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2024 Rahul Harshvardhan Singh ...Applicant/s VERSUS State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shreyansh R. Mithare, Ms. Pooja S. Sharma Mr. Avinash S. Kori and Mr. Shobhit Desai, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Tejas A. Mane a/w Mr. Abhijeet Khade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Sunil Khaire, PSI, Bangur Nagar Police Station, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this application is to the order of rejection of discharge application passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 01.04.2016, around 4.00 p.m. complainant’s daughter Pratyusha Banerjee, who was an actress by profession committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan at her residence. It is alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the applicant. Page 1 of 4 SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.07 10:43:04 +0530 1-REVN-158-2024 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje 3. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant and deceased were in a live-in-relationship for around eight months. The deceased had not filed a complaint in the past against the applicant for alleged harassment. Before the suicide, last call was between the applicant and deceased and in the said call, the applicant was persuading the deceased not to take any extreme step till his arrival. This conversation shows that the deceased was angry with her parents rather than the applicant. There is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR. There is no case at all against the applicant but these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Court and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the applicant and deceased were in a live-in- relationship. The applicant was possessive about the deceased. He used to quarrel with the deceased and assault her. The applicant was staying in the house of the deceased. When the first informant was staying with them, she saw the deceased being harassed by the applicant. The deceased has committed suicide due to harassment by the applicant. The learned Special Judge has passed a well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. Page 2 of 4 1-REVN-158-2024 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje 5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. Admittedly, the deceased was in a live-in- relationship with the applicant. Though, it is alleged that the applicant had been harassing the deceased but no evidence is produced on record in that regard. It is significant to note that there was last call between the applicant and the deceased before the deceased committed suicide. During the said call, the applicant was imploring the deceased not to take any extreme steps till his arrival but the deceased was not in the state to listen. She was continuously staying that she was fed up with her life. After the incident, the applicant along with others immediately reached the incident spot and took the deceased to the hospital to save her life. It appears from the record that after the said incident, due to trauma, the applicant was also admitted in the hospital. No complaint was made by the deceased against the applicant about harassment when they were staying together. From the evidence on record, there is nothing to show that the applicant abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no case at all against the applicant. But these facts are not considered by the learned Special Court. In view of above, I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant is discharged from the Sessions Case No. 1-REVN-158-2024 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje 315 of 2016 arising out of C.R.No. 110 of 2016 registered with Bangur Nagar Police Station. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)