*1* 30rev93o26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2026 PRIYA SANJAY DAVAHALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri Bhagure Pralhad Chagan, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/State. … WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3459 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2026 PRAKASH BABURAO BHUSARE VERSUS PRIYA W/O SANJAY DAVAHALE AND ANOTHER … Shri R.V. Gore, advocate for the applicant/ intervenor. … CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 17 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. At the outset, learned advocate Shri R.V. Gore states that the informant has filed Criminal Application No.3459/2026 for intervention in the instant Criminal Revision. 2. Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein, Criminal Application No.3459/2026 is allowed. The applicant therein is permitted to intervene and learned advocate 2026:BHC-AUG:37210 *2* 30rev93o26 Shri R.V. Gore is permitted to assist the learned APP. 3. By this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant/ accused No.4 challenges the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on the application below exhibit-21 in Sessions Case No.516/2024, whereby the said application filed by the applicant under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, came to be rejected. 4. According to the applicant, she is sister-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is accused No.4 in FIR bearing Crime No.0547/2024 registered with the Cidco Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, on 25.08.2024. 5. As per the FIR, the informant (Prakash Bhusare) is the father of deceased Dr.Pratiksha Pritam Gaware. The deceased was married to accused No.1 (Dr.Pritam Gaware) on 27.03.2024. The deceased as well as accused No.1 were having MBBS degree and were medical professionals. After marriage, the *3* 30rev93o26 deceased went to cohabit with accused No.1 at village Karanjkheda, however, her husband Dr.Pritam was doubting her character and therefore, there were quarrels between them. On 01.08.2024, the deceased got employment at MGM Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and therefore, the couple took a house on rent in N-6 area of CIDCO. However, on 24.08.2024, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. Accused No.1 and landlord admitted the deceased to hospital. Investigation was set in motion and the body of deceased was sent for postmortem. The police arrived on the spot and during search, they found suicide note written by the deceased and same was seized. After funeral, the FIR was lodged on 25.08.2024 against the husband of deceased. 6. According to the applicant, initially FIR was only registered against the husband i.e. Dr. Pritam, however, the informant has given supplementary statement and on the basis of which, the names of father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in- law (applicant) came to be added. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons and the case is registered as Sessions Case *4* 30rev93o26 No.516/2024. The applicant has filed the application under Section 250 of the BNSS for discharge, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 09.02.2026. 7. Learned advocate for the applicant/ accused No.4 submits that there is no material against the applicant so as to prosecute her before the Trial Court. The applicant is married on 08.03.2020 i.e. prior to the marriage of the deceased and accused No.1. She has been staying separately at Dharashiv at her matrimonial house along with her husband and child of four years. 8. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that even bare perusal of the suicide note would not disclose anything incriminating against the applicant/ accused No.4. The main allegation is against accused No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased. According to him, had there been any harassment to the deceased at the hands of the present applicant, same could have been reflected in the suicide note which runs into four pages, however, except one line there is no further allegation against the applicant. The statements recorded by the police are of interested witnesses and by way of general allegations, they have *5* 30rev93o26 deliberately tried to implicate the present applicant though the said witnesses are very much aware that the applicant is residing miles away from the house of deceased. Even otherwise, on the date of incident, the applicant was not in town where the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the applicant is said to have abetted the crime in question. 9. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that learned Trial Court, instead of considering the material in the charge-sheet, has given unnecessary weightage to the aspect that the offence is serious one. Learned advocate states that though the offence is serious one, however, learned Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that material against the applicant is lacking to prosecute her. Learned advocate has taken me through the impugned order. By referring to paragraph Nos.17 to 20, he tried to emphasis that learned Trial Court has virtually given no reason as to why the role attributed to the applicant is of serious nature, which makes the applicant liable for prosecution for the alleged offences. Learned Trial Court has committed error while passing the impugned order. The applicant, who is lady and *6* 30rev93o26 staying with her husband and child at her matrimonial house at Dharashiv, may not be made to suffer from agony of trial. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that the Criminal Revision Application deserves to be allowed and the applicant needs to be discharged as there is no sufficient material against the applicant. 10. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the instant revision application. He submits that the offence is serious one. A lady, who was 26 years old doctor and was having bright future, was compelled to commit suicide and this Court may not take a lenient view for discharging the applicant. On the contrary, the record suggests that the applicant deserves to be prosecuted for the offence charged with. Learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application for discharge. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision and it is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned advocate Shri Gore appearing for the intervenor, while assisting learned APP, took this Court to the contents of the suicide note and pointed out that the present applicant has been named in the suicide note, which itself is sufficient to hold that the applicant has abetted the crime. Shri Gore reiterated the submissions of learned APP and prayed for *7* 30rev93o26 dismissal of this revision application. 12. After hearing learned advocates for the rival parties and going through the impugned order and record available, I find that learned Trial Court appears to have placed considerable emphasis on the seriousness of the offence without adequately examining whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of the offences specifically against the applicant. Thus, learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, was virtually carried away by the seriousness of offence rather than considering the material against the applicant. I have gone through the contents of the charge-sheet. The statements of relatives of the deceased have been relied upon by the prosecution. On perusing the said statements, I find that the allegations against the applicant are of general nature. Indeed, the deceased, who was hardly 26 years old and was medical professional, has committed suicide by writing four pages suicide note wherein, there is minute reference of the applicant. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine the material placed on record with a view to ascertain whether the same, if accepted at its face value, *8* 30rev93o26 discloses sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or hold a mini-trial. However, where the material gives rise only to a suspicion and not a grave suspicion of the accused having committed the alleged offence, discharge may be warranted. Apart from allegation of general nature in the statements of witnesses and minute reference of the applicant in the suicide note, I find no other serious incriminating material against the applicant so as to attract ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous cases right from the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628 and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 has emphasized that the requirement of specific abetment, intention and nexus/proximity and observed that there is general tendency of relatives of the deceased to implicate her in-laws in the crime. 14. What is important to note in the case in hand is that *9* 30rev93o26 the applicant is admittedly married prior to the marriage of the deceased and she is staying along with her husband and child at Dharashiv which is almost 250 kilometers from the house of deceased. The deceased committed suicide within four months of her marriage with accused No.1 (Dr.Pritam). The fact that the applicant was residing separately at Dharashiv, at a considerable distance from the matrimonial residence of the deceased, is a relevant circumstance which assumes significance in the absence of any specific material showing her frequent presence, participation in matrimonial disputes, or any particular act of cruelty, harassment, instigation or intentional aid attributable to her. There could be one or two occasions on which the present applicant might have come to meet the deceased and by that itself would not mean that the applicant has virtually participated in the alleged crime in question. It is trite law that mere allegation of harassment, in the absence of material indicating instigation, intentional aid or other conduct falling within the statutory definition of abetment, would not by itself constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. The learned Trial Court, therefore, erred in treating the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of the prosecution proving its allegations at trial as *10* 30rev93o26 sufficient reasons to decline discharge, instead of examining whether the material on record furnished sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant. Consequently, the applicant cannot be compelled to undergo the process of trial merely on the basis of suspicion which does not rise to the level of grave suspicion. 15. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this Criminal Revision Application. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2026 is quashed and set aside and the application exhibit- 21 is allowed. The applicant/accused No.4 is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 16. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the allegations and material against applicant/accused No.4 and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case against the other accused. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )