Sumit Kumar Niranjan Prasad RoyversusState of Maharashtra

                                                                             40-REVN-239-2026 (CR).doc


     Shubhada S Kadam


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 239 OF 2026

                      1. Sumit Kumar Niranjan Prasad Roy
                      2. Arti Sumit Roy
                      3. Ramesh Kumar Sagar Rai                        ...Applicant/s
                      Versus
                      1. The State of Maharashtra
                      2. Vinodkumar Firangi Rautrao                    ...Respondent/s
                      _________________________________________________________________

                      Mr. Raviraj Gamare along with Mr. Narendra Soneji, Advocates for
                      Applicants.
                      Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr. Prashant Laxman Rathod, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                                                             CORAM       :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                             DATE        :   5th OCTOBER, 2026.
                      P.C. :

                      1.            The challenge in this application is to the impugned order
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM                 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Kalyan, whereby the
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM         discharge application of the applicants was rejected.
Date: 2026.10.06
18:32:17 +0530

                      2.            It is prosecution's case that the daughter of the first informant

                      committed suicide by hanging. It is alleged that the said suicide was

                      committed due to mental and physical harassment                 caused by the

                      applicants.

                      3.            It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the

                      applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of the


                                                         Page 1 of 3
                                                                     40-REVN-239-2026 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


               incident, the deceased was not staying with the applicants. The alleged

               allegations of harassment were prior to two to three years of the incident.

               However, these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and

               has passed the impugned order. No case is made out against the

               applicants, and requested to allow the application.

               4.         It is contention of learned APP that there are specific allegations

               against the applicants that due to the mental and physical harassment

               caused by them, the deceased committed suicide. Learned Sessions Judge

               has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and

               requested to reject the application.

               5.         It is contention of learned counsel for the first informant that

               the complaint was filed due to misunderstanding. There was no mental or

               physical harassment caused by the applicants to the deceased. The first

               informant has filed an affidavit in reply stating that he has no objection to

               allowing the application, and requested to pass appropriate orders.

               6.         I have heard all learned counsel, perused impugned order and

               documents produced on record. Admittedly, at the time of the incident, the

               deceased was not staying with the applicants, and the alleged allegations

               of harassment are prior to two years of the incident. The statement of

               witness Rohitkumar Vinodkumar Rai, brother of the deceased, shows that

               he has no complaint regarding the suicidal death of his sister. As the

                                                Page 2 of 3
                                                                  40-REVN-239-2026 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


               applicants were not staying with the deceased at the time of the incident,

               and the alleged allegations against the applicants are prior to two years of

               the suicide, it cannot be said that the applicants were involved in the

               abetment or instigation of the suicide. However, these facts are not

               considered by the learned Sessions Judge. No case is made out against the

               applicants. Considering these facts, I pass following order:

                                               ORDER

                       (1) The impugned order      dated 24th April 2026 passed by the

                          learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Kalyan, below Exhibit-11

                          in Session Case No.52 of 2022 is quashed and set aside.

                       (ii) The applicants are discharged in Sessions Case No.52 of 2022

                          The revision application is allowed in above terms and disposed

               of.




                                                             (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                               Page 3 of 3