Bombay High Court
RAHUL HARSHVARDHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that no evidence showed the applicant abetted or instigated the suicide, and therefore he was discharged.
Summary
The applicant, Rahul Harshvardhan Singh, sought discharge from a criminal case alleging his involvement in the suicide of his live‑in partner, Pratyusha Banerjee. The prosecution alleged that Singh had harassed the deceased, leading her to hang herself, and the Special Judge had rejected Singh’s discharge application. Singh contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a last phone call in which he urged her not to take any extreme step and noting the absence of any prior complaint of harassment. The court examined the record and found no material evidence of harassment, abetment, or instigation by Singh, and observed that the deceased expressed distress unrelated to Singh. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, and Singh was discharged from the pending criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record establishes the applicant’s liability for abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the discharge application was legally justified.
Subjects
- suicide
- harassment
- live‑in relationship
- criminal revision
- discharge
- abetment of suicide
- false implication
Judgment
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
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
SATISH Date:
KILAJE Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shreyansh R. Mithare, Ms.
2026.10.07
KILAJE 10:43:04
+0530 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
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.
Page 3 of 4
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.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.