NILESH SAHEBRAO SONAWANE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38768-DB




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1968 OF 2024
                            Nilesh s/o Sahebrao Sonawane and others
                                             VERSUS
                               The State of Maharashtra and others

           Mr. A. D. Ostwal i/b Mr. K. D. Jadhav a/w Mr. V. L. Bhange, Advocate for
           applicants
           Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent-State

                                                CORAM      : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                DATE       : 25th August, 2026


           PER COURT :-


           1.           Respondent No. 2, though served, has remained absent. On

           the previous date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of Respondent

           No. 2, and hence in order to give him a reasonable opportunity of

           hearing, the matter was adjourned. Even today, none appears for

           Respondent No. 2. Consequently, the Court proceeded to hear and decide

           the application on its merits with the assistance of the learned counsel

           for the applicants and the learned APP.


           2.           By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

           Procedure, the applicants seek to quashment of the proceeding pending

           before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad bearing    Regular

           Criminal Case No. 310/2025 arising out of Crime No. 0144/2024

           registered at MIDC Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, as well as

           the consequent charge sheet No. 302/2024 for the offences punishable



           Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt                                              1 of 5
under section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.


3.           It is the case of the complainant Dashrath Sheshrao Wagh

i.e. father of deceased Shrikant, lodged the first information report

regarding the suicide of 18 year-old-son Shrikant, which occurred on

28.12.2023. On 22.11.2022, the deceased took admission in “Garudzep

Academy” for police and army recruitment pre-training after seeing

advertisements promising a 100% Job guarantee, for which the

complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,44,500/- towards fees and

mess charges. The complainant alleged that during his stay, the present

applicants subjected the deceased to severe physical assault. There were

poor living conditions, delayed meals over fee disputes and mental

harassment, including taunting him to “go die” if he failed to secure a

job. On 28.12.2023, after calling his mother in distress, deceased

committed suicide by hanging on the academy premises.


4.           Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the

allegations in the FIR are considered in its entirety, the facts fail to

disclose a prima facie case or substantiate the contentions raised by the

complainant.    He contended that routine reprimands, scolding, or

demanding prescribed fees do not amount to direct instigation to commit

suicide. Additionally, there was no immediate or proximate action by the

present applicants at the time of alleged incident to show that they

instigating drove the deceased to take their own life. He further



Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt                                              2 of 5
highlighted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of over 55

days in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident occurred on 28.12.2023

whereas the FIR was lodged on 22.02.2024. Further, he argued that this

deliberate silence with the complete absence of mens rea, which

demonstrates that the present first information report are a result of an

afterthought and the allegations in present FIR are nothing but a

colorable addition aimed at the tarnishing the Garudzep Academy’s

reputation. Thus, continuing these criminal proceedings would be a clear

abuse of the process of law. He further argued that in similar matter i.e.,

in Criminal Application No. 1966/2024, the Division Bench of this Court

has quashed the proceeding against the applicants. Furthermore,

Learned Counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on following

judgments:-

1. State of Andhra Pradesh v/s Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC
582,
2. M. Mohan v/s State Represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1238,
3. State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT
604.
4. Ayyub v/s State of U.P., (2025) 3 SCC 334
5. Mahendra Awase v/s. State of M.P. (2025) 4 SCC 801
6. Prabhat Kumar Mishra v/s State of U.P. (2024) 3 SCC 665
7. Naresh Kumar v/s State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 417
8. Mohit Singhal v/s State of Uttarakhand (2024) 1 SCC 417
9. Kashibai v/s State of Karnataka (2023) 15 SCC 751
10. Mariano Anto Bruno v/s State of Tamilnadu (2023) 15 SCC
560
11. Geo Varghese v/s State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC 144
12. Kanchan Sharma v/s State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 806
13. Arnab Goswami v/s State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427
14. Gurcharan Singh v/s State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200
15. M. Mohan v/s State (2011) 2 SCC 626



Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt                                               3 of 5
16. Madan Mohan Singh v/s State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628
17. Ramesh Kumar v/s State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
18. Swamy Prahaladas v/s State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC
438.


5.           Learned APP submitted that upon perusal of the charge-sheet

and on instructions from the Investigation Officer, no evidence has been

collected during the course of investigation to indicate any telephonic

communication between the deceased Shrikant and his parents on

28.12.2023, prior to the deceased committing suicide. He further

submitted that although correspondence appears to have been initiated

during investigation with regard to the Call Detail Records (CDR) no

concrete evidence or statement could be placed on record in that regard

for want of specific instructions. Consequently, there is no material on

record to show any proximate communication between the deceased and

his family members on the date of the alleged incident.


6.           Perused record. During the course of hearing, a specific

query was made to learned APP to point out any evidence collected

during the course of investigation regarding the date on which the

deceased committed suicide he had any contact with the informant.

There is no such evidence available on record. To make out a case of

abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of direct instigation or

intentional conduct compelling the deceased to take their own life.

Routine administrative actions, scolding, or demanding academy fees do




Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt                                              4 of 5
not constitute abetment. Moreover there is no proximity in the alleged

acts of applicants and action of commission of suicide by deceased. In

similar set of allegations, another criminal proceeding against applicants

came to be quashed by Division Bench of this Court.


7.            In the absence of supporting evidence or any proximate act

by the applicants, no prima facie case is made out against them. As held

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana v. Ch.

Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, criminal proceedings must be

quashed where the material collected during investigation fails to

disclose a prima facie offence. Considering the view taken by the Division

Bench of this Court in Criminal Application No. 1966/2024, permitting the

continuation        of   criminal   proceedings   against   the   applicants     on

unsubstantiated allegations would serve no fruitful purpose and would

amount to an abuse of the process of the court.


8.            Hence, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause

‘B’, ‘G’ and ‘H’.




                                                            (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

B. S. Joshi




Cri Appln-1968-2024.odt                                                        5 of 5