SUNIL SHAMRAO CHOUGULE AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                      (1)                42criapln955.25.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
VISHAL                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAM
KAMBLE                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 955 OF 2025
Digitally signed by   1.    Sunil Shamrao Chougule,
VISHAL RAM
KAMBLE                      Age-42 years, Occu.-Service,Chhena
Date: 2026.09.22            R/o. Near Pitachi Giran Varnali Vasahat,
13:24:06 +0530
                            Dist. Sangli

                      2.    Ganesh Prakash Joshi,
                            Age-45 years, Occu-Service,
                            R/o. Sainath Park, Haripur Road,
                            Dist. Sangli                                ...APPLICANTS

                                  VERSUS

                      1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                            Through P.I. Vishrambaug Police Station,
                            Dist. Sangli

                      2.    Priyanka Mahesh Kamble
                            Age-32 years,
                            R/o. Jilha Parishad Colony,
                            Vishrambaug, Sangli
                            Currently R/o. At School NO. 42,
                            Near Devkule Hospital, Tq. Miraj,
                            Ajroli, Dist. Sangli                       ...RESPONDENTS


                      Mr. Meghdeep Oak, Advocate for the Applicants.
                      Mrs. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P. P. (through V.C.), for the
                      Respondent No.1 – State.
                      Mr. Rushikesh A. Mohite, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.


                                              CORAM         :   ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                 DATE       :   17th SEPTEMBER, 2026



                                                                                      1 of 15
                                 (2)                42criapln955.25.odt




ORAL JUDGMENT :



1.          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.          Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and

Respondent No. 2 as well as the learned Additional P.P.

3.          Perused the record as pointed out by the learned Advocate

for the respective parties and have gone through the judgments relied

upon by the learned Advocate for the Applicants in support of his

submissions.

4.          Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this

Court to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.1 of 2025 registered

with Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli dated 01-01-2025 for the

offences punishable under Sections 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

(for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 (for short ‘the

Atrocities Act’) against the Applicants and filing of the charge-sheet,

pursuant to the said FIR.

5.             On 1st January, 2025, informant Priyanka, widow of the

deceased Mahesh, lodged the report against the Applicants, alleging

that they used to harass and torture her husband as he belongs to the

Scheduled Caste category. Due to their mental and physical


                                                                 2 of 15
                                 (3)                42criapln955.25.odt




harassment, he was under mental stress. They had taunted him with

caste-based slurs and thereby tortured him.

6.          They were telling other colleagues not to speak to him in

the office. Accused No. 1, Sunil, spoke to Mr. Galgale and started

harassing her husband deliberately. Therefore, her husband was

frustrated. On 15/10/2024, the deceased lodged the complaint against

the applicants. Due to their behaviour, the deceased was under mental

stress and therefore, on 5th December 2024, the deceased committed

suicide. Based on her report, the offence was registered against the

Applicants, and an investigation was conducted. After completion of

the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against them. Aggrieved

by the same, the Applicants have preferred this Petition.

7.            Learned Advocate for the Applicants vehemently

contended that there was approximately one month’s delay in lodging

the FIR. The FIR does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the

delay in lodging it. Secondly, he submitted that nothing from the

charge-sheet indicates that soon before the death of the deceased, the

Applicants had abetted him and instigated him to commit suicide. On

the contrary, he pointed out that the deceased was absent from the

office from 24-07-2024 till 27-10-2024. Accordingly, he drew my

attention to the notice issued to the deceased and the explanation


                                                                 3 of 15
                                 (4)                42criapln955.25.odt




submitted by him pursuant to the said notice. He further pointed out

that the explanation given by the Applicants to the notice does not

indicate that, due to the harassment or torture by the Applicants, the

deceased was on leave or was absent from the office. He emphasised

that even assuming that the deceased had circulated the video on 24-

10-2024, it cannot be said that, immediately after circulation of the

video, he committed suicide as he was harassed at the hands of the

Applicants. Lastly, he submitted that none of the witnesses has stated

that the Applicants harassed the deceased at any time. Therefore, the

allegations made in the FIR are baseless, and it cannot be said that the

deceased was abetted by the Applicants soon before his death.

Therefore, he urged that the Petition be allowed.

8.            To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the

following judgments.

i]     Prakash and others Vs State of Maharashtra and another1
ii]    Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra Vs State of Uttar
       Pradesh and another2
iii]   Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs State of Maharashtra and
others3

9.            On the other hand, the learned Addl. P. P. and Advocate

for Respondent No. 2 strongly opposed the Application contending

that the circulation of the video by the deceased itself indicates that
1 (2026) 6 SCC 251
2 (2024) 3 SCC 665
3 (2018) 7 SCC 781

                                                                 4 of 15
                                     (5)                 42criapln955.25.odt




the deceased was harassed and tortured by the Applicants. Therefore,

that is sufficient to draw an inference that the Applicants abetted the

deceased to commit suicide. The learned Addl. P. P. tried to point out

the statements of witnesses Pradip & Mahadeo and submitted that a

mere perusal of the said statements indicates that the Applicants

harassed the deceased. However, on query, she failed to satisfy the

court as to why his statement was recorded belatedly, i.e. after three

months from the incident. Hence, they propounded that the statements

of the witnesses Pradip and Mahadeo support the prosecution case and

show that the deceased was harassed at the hands of the Applicants;

therefore, they urged that the Applicants failed to make out a case to

invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. As such, they prayed for

dismissal of the Application.

10.         I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material placed on record and the judgments relied upon by the

learned Counsel for the parties. While dealing with the above

controversy, it is appropriate to reproduce Sections 108 and 45 of

BNS.

            “Section 108: 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.

                                                                        5 of 15
                                     (6)                    42criapln955.25.odt




             Section 45: A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

             (a) instigates any person to do that thing; or
             (b) 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
             (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
             that thing.”

11.          Section 108 has two basic ingredients: first, an act of

suicide by one person, and second, the abetment to the said act by

another person or conspiracy. In order to substantiate a charge under

Section 108 of the BNS, it must necessarily be proved that the accused

persons have contributed to the suicide of the deceased by some direct

or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the

three conditions outlined in Section 45 of the BNS Act has to be

satisfied. Section 108 read with Section 45 of the BNS is pari materia

to Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC.

12.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has

interpreted Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, and its

principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to

suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of

instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused persons, which

must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide; that is, the

main condition is suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or

incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
                                                                            6 of 15
                                      (7)                   42criapln955.25.odt




suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would

have no other option but to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has crystallised the law on abetment through a plethora of

decisions. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or

intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a

charge under Section 108 of the BNS, the act of abetment would

require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another

person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the

accused persons being apparent from the face of the record, the

aforesaid section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an

active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused persons which

left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.

13.           Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S.

Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan4 had an occasion to consider the

scope of Section 306 IPC and the ingredients which are essential for

abetment as set out in Section 107 of the IPC, wherein it observed in

paragraphs 16, 18, 21 and 23 to 25, which reads thus:-

    This Court, in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another12 , had an
   occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients
   essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as
   follows:

       “16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code;
       however, its meaning and import are well known and require no
       explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing ”, thus implying
       an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it
4 (2010) 12 SCC 190
                                                                           7 of 15
                                (8)                    42criapln955.25.odt



by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his
object of killing himself.

18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that
the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Section 309 IPC.

       21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a
       judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. In
       Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p.
       731, para 1)
       “1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's
       elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me.
       My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
       connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and
       being harassed, I want to die by burning.”
       The Court, on the aforementioned allegations, came to a definite
       conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are
       attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the
       appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC
       merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment
       of the deceased is unsustainable in law.


       23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC
       (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that:
        “17. … The court should be extremely careful in assessing the
       facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in
       the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to
       the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing
       suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide
       was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
       in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim
       belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not
       expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
       society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
       satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
       the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
       24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
       Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The
       Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “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 other. Each
       person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. 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.
                                                                      8 of 15
                                    (9)                    42criapln955.25.odt



             25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
             intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
             act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
             suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
             legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased
             into such a position that he committed suicide.”
                                                          (emphasis supplied)

14.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena (supra) held

that “abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a

positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in

committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” It is further

observed that “the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the

cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person

under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to

commit an offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act

which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no other option.

That act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a

position that he committed suicide.”

15.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash (supra) has

considered various decisions delivered by the Supreme Court and,

after considering the same, in paras 32 to 34 has observed as under.

      32. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or
      incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence
                                                                          9 of 15
                               (10)                  42criapln955.25.odt



of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions
that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two
occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus
or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of
the act of instigation by the accused person.
33. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act
of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it
intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has
no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which
had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two
weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to
the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was
no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein
in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
       “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third
       respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is
       impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased
       to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount
       borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using
       abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose.
       The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before
       the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by
       the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no
       stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
       amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed
       the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.

       12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under
       Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore,
       the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse
       of the process of law.” (emphasis supplied)

34. This Court, in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana16 ,
observed as follows:-
   “20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno
   v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after
   referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of
   culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under :
   “45. … 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
   occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the
   person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
   sustainable.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)



                                                                   10 of 15
                                 (11)               42criapln955.25.odt




16.          Having considered the settled legal position on Sections

306 and 107 of the IPC as referred to above and the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash (supra), Prabhat (supra) and

Vaijnath (supra), I have to proceed to consider the facts of the present

case in view of the established principles.

17.          It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a

peon with the Irrigation Department and the applicants were also

working as clerks. During his lifetime, he never made a complaint

alleging that the Applicants abused him with caste slurs or harassed

him because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

However, for the first time, the complainant made such allegations in

her complaint. None of the witnesses has supported the said

allegations. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations in the complaint

about the caste slur appear baseless.

18.          Secondly, it appears that from 24-07-2024 till 27-10-

2024, the deceased was absent from duty and therefore, a show cause

notice was issued to him for his absenteeism. He replied to the said

show cause notice on 28-10-2024, wherein he stated that “he was

absent from the office from 24-07-2024 to 26-07-2024, and on 30 and

31-07-2024 on account of compensatory leave and thereafter, from 1st

August, 2024, his health deteriorated, and therefore, he could not


                                                                11 of 15
                                  (12)                42criapln955.25.odt




appear on duty till 27.10.2024. Along with the said explanation, he has

also annexed the medical certificate. Perusal of the medical certificate

reveals that ‘he had viral hepatitis and general weakness’. He has

nowhere stated that, due to harassment at the hands of the Applicants,

he was absent from duty. These facts indicate that the deceased was

absent from the office from 24-07-2024 to 27-10-2024.

19.          It also appears that on 24-10-2024, one video was

circulated by the deceased. However, in the said video also, he did not

say that the Applicants were abusing him with caste slurs; therefore,

he was under mental stress but only stated that they were trying to

harass him by giving him extra work. He also stated that, at the

instigation of the Applicants, Mr. Galgale was also allotted work and,

as a result, he was tired. However, on perusal of the statement of Mr.

Galgale, the same prima facie appears to be incorrect.

20.          It is pertinent to note that on 5 th December 2024, the

deceased committed suicide and FIR was lodged on 1 st January, 2025,

i.e. after 25 days of his suicide. It doesn't appear from the statement of

the witnesses that the deceased was harassed and tortured at the hands

of the Applicants. None of the witnesses has stated the same. The

statements of Mahadev and Pradeep Patil, as pointed out by the

learned Addl. P.P also do not denote that the deceased was harassed at


                                                                  12 of 15
                                 (13)                42criapln955.25.odt




the hands of the Applicants or that they were abusing him with caste

slurs or that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide soon before

his death. On the contrary, witnesses Mr. Pradeep and Mr. Mahadeo

have categorically stated that no dispute with the deceased arose in

their presence, nor that any office employee harassed him.

21.         Apart from that, it is worth noting that the alleged video

was circulated on 24.10.2024. The alleged incident occurred on

05.12.2024, i.e. after a gap of one and a half months. In such an

eventuality, it cannot be said that soon before the commission of the

suicide, the deceased was harassed and tortured by the Applicants or

they abetted him to commit suicide.

22.         At the outset, it is appropriate to take note that, in view of

the dictum in Prabhat (supra), the prosecution against the Applicants

for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act is ex facie

illegal and unwarranted because none of the witnesses supported the

afterthought allegations of the complainant in the complaint to attract

the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act to justify the

allegations in the FIR against the Applicants.

23.         Thus, having considered the above facts and law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred judgments,

it does not appear that, soon before the commission of the suicide, the


                                                                  13 of 15
                                  (14)              42criapln955.25.odt




deceased was harassed and tortured by the Applicants. No close

proximity is indicated from the entire record between the act of

alleged instigation and the act of suicide. Furthermore, no close

proximity, such as to create a clear nexus between the act of

instigation and the act of suicide, appears from the record. As a

consequence, the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that

the Applicants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the

deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of sufficient material to

show that the Applicants had intended by their words/acts to push the

deceased into such a position that he was left with no other option but

to commit suicide, in such an eventuality, the continuation of the

criminal proceedings against the Applicants would result in an abuse

of the process of law, and it would not serve the ends of justice.

Therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate to exercise the inherent

powers under section 528 of the BNSS to quash and set aside the FIR

and the pending proceedings against the Applicants.

24.          As a result, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause-ii & iii which reads as under:

   “ii]   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the charge-sheet
   and proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 1 of 2025 registered with
   Vishrambaug Police Station, bearing Special Case No.174 of 2025
   pending before the court of Ld. Special Judge, Sangli.

                                                                14 of 15
                                     (15)              42criapln955.25.odt




    iii]     That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
    order dated 15-09-2025 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,
    Sangli, taking cognizance of the charge-sheet and issuing process
    against the applicants.”


25.               The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

as to costs.

26.               The Application is disposed of.

27.               Inform the concerned court accordingly.



                                            [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]


VishalK/42criapln955.25.odt




                                                                   15 of 15