Bombay High Court
SANDEEP SHIVAJI BHONDVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The revision is dismissed as the court correctly found that a prima facie case exists and the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction.
Summary
The applicant, Sandeep Bhondve, was charged with abetment of suicide (IPC s.306 r/w s.107) and offences under s.504 and s.506 IPC for allegedly cheating a relative of Rs.59 lakh in a land transaction, issuing dishonoured cheques and threatening the deceased with death. The deceased later committed suicide, leaving a note that named the applicant. The applicant sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. On criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court examined whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case, emphasizing that the court at the discharge stage must not conduct a mini‑trial but only assess if sufficient grounds exist. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the allegations created suspicious circumstances and a prima facie case of abetment of suicide, and therefore the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The material on record discloses a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under IPC s.306 r/w s.107.
- Whether the court at the stage of a discharge application can examine the authenticity of the suicide note and proximate cause.
- Whether the High Court erred in its exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227/239 CrPC.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged threats and dishonoured cheques constitute the requisite mens rea for abetment of suicide.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227, 239, 397, 401
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 47
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 107, 306, 504, 506
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7
Subjects
- abetment of suicide
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 107 IPC
- discharge application
- Section 227 CrPC
- prima facie case
- criminal revision
- suicide note
- threats
- dishonoured cheques
Judgment
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2017
Sandeep Bhondve ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
****
SNEHA
NITIN Mr. Tapan Thatte i/b Mr. Vivek Arote for the Applicant.
CHAVAN Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for Respondent/State.
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
Ms. Mayanka S.R. for Respondent No.2.
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.08.28 PSI Ravindra Khamgal, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune Police Station present
17:56:03 +0530
in Court.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Invoking section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short), sole accused is challenging
the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
below Exhibit 15 in Sessions Case No. 413 of 2016, by which Applicant's
discharge application is rejected. The Applicant is seeking discharge
from FIR No. 166 of 2015 registered with Talegao Dabhade Police
Station, Pune for alleged offences punishable under Section 306, 504
and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).
3. Respondent No. 2-Complainant is the brother of deceased
Sagar Pandurang Darekar, who committed suicide on 10.06.2015.
Sneha Chavan 1
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
4. Respondent No. 2 filed FIR dated 15.06.2015 alleging as
under. That the Applicant-Accused is relative of complainant and
deceased. That Applicant is engaged in business of land purchase and
sale, who induced the deceased to invest money for profits. That
deceased had paid/invested total Rs. 59,00,000/- with the Applicant in
the land transaction in respect of Gat No. 324 with a third person Mr.
Bhowmik. That the deceased had paid/invested the amount through
cheques and cash in a land transaction. That the complainant and
deceased came to know that bypassing them, the Applicant has directly
completed the transaction of further sell without informing the
Complainant and his brother. That not even original amount of Rs.
59,00,000/- is returned or repaid, let alone any profit thereon. That the
transaction had taken place in November 2013. That on being
confronted, the Applicant-Accused kept promising return of money. It is
further alleged that before marriage of the complainant, on insistence of
the Complainant and the deceased, when they met the Applicant-
accused at home and at Sentosa Hotel, Ravet many times asking for
money, Applicant-Accused had issued 4 cheques dated 30.04.2014,
29.09.2014, 16.11.2014 and 17.03.2015 amounting total to
Rs.27,00,000/- which were dishonored. That since the complainant and
his brother were in dire need of money for the purpose of marriage,
they again went and requested the Applicant-Accused for payment of
money, when they were threatened by Applicant's bodyguard who said
that he will kill them with a pistol. It is alleged that thereafter, when the
deceased demanded money by calling the accused on his mobile
number, the Applicant-Accused told him that he will not pay and the
deceased can do whatever he wants and threatened that if deceased
called again, the Applicant will kill him. In such circumstances the
deceased has committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note naming
Sneha Chavan 2
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
the Applicant-Accused as a reason for ending his life.
5. Investigation was carried out. Spot Panchnama has been
conducted on 10.06.2015 where the suicide note has been found.
Chargesheet is already filed. Statements of following persons are
recorded during investigation :
Sr.No. Name Relation
1. Sameer Pandurang Darekar Informant – Brother of deceased.
Statement recorded on 11.06.2015
and during registration of FIR on
15.06.2015.
2. Sachin Narayan Dhamankar Brother-in-law (sister’s husband).
Statement recorded on 11.06.2015
and 16.06.2015.
3. Babasaheb alias Pandurang Father of deceased.
Vitthal Darekar Statement recorded on 11.06.2015
and 16.06.2015.
4. Kamal Babasaheb alias Mother of deceased.
Pangurang Darekar Statement recorded on 11.06.2015
and 16.06.2015.
5. Rupali Sachin Dhamankar Sister of deceased.
Statement recorded on 11.06.2015
and 16.06.2015.
6. Ramdas Baban Ghojge Businessman (Kirana shop owner).
Farm of deceased behind his shop.
Statement recorded on 16.06.2015.
7. Nitin Gopal Madake Friend of deceased.
Statement recorded on 17.06.2015.
8. Sandeep Shivaji Bhondve Present Applicant-Accused.
Statement recorded on 19.06.2015.
9. Sagar Ashok Gaikwad Distant relative of the deceased.
Statement recorded on 22.06.2015.
10. Suraj Bharat Ghojge Person visited the spot on day of
suicide.
Statement recorded on 26.06.2015.
Sneha Chavan 3
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
11. Hemant Devram Pardhi Person visited the spot on day of
suicide.
Statement recorded on 26.06.2015.
12. Kundan Mahadev Mashram Tenant of the room where suicide is
committed.
Statement recorded on 26.06.2015.
13. Laxmi Maruti Kasle Tenant of the adjacent room.
Statement recorded on 26.06.2015.
14. Amit Phanindranath Person connected with land Gat No.
Bhowmik 324.
Statement recorded on 01.11.2015.
6. The Applicant filed application below Exhibit-15 seeking
discharge under Section 227 of CrPC. By the impugned order dated
01.07.2017, the learned Additional Session Judge, Pune has refused to
discharge the Applicant.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned counsel Mr. Thatte appearing for the Applicant
submitted as under.
7.1. That the alleged suicide note is unsigned and if the admitted
handwriting of the deceased is considered, then ex-facie suicide note
does not appear to be written by the deceased.
7.2. That the deceased has committed suicide allegedly due to non
payment of invested amount but there is no direct evidence to show any
participation or instigation by the Applicant to compel the deceased to
commit suicide.
7.3. That the suicide has been committed after almost 15 days from
the date of marriage of the complainant for which money was seriously
demanded and FIR does not indicate any clear timeline during which
the amount was insisted and not paid which is the alleged cause for
Sneha Chavan 4
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
suicide. It is submitted that therefore, there is no proximate reason
connecting the Applicant with the suicide and proximity is broken in the
present case.
7.4. That there is no mens rea present and assuming that Applicant is
a person who has refused to repay the money, it cannot be said that he
intended or instigated the deceased to commit suicide; that even suicide
note does not indicate any instigation by the Applicant.
7.5. Relying on Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 it is
submitted that statement of nobody who can be said to be acquainted
with the handwriting of deceased, has been recorded.
7.6. That the Applicant has been falsely implicated and necessary
ingredients of Section 306 r/w 107 of IPC are not spelled out from the
allegations. He relied on following Judgments in support of his case :
(i) Abhinav Mohan Delkar V/s. State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Appeal No. 2177 and 2185 of 2024, Judgment dated 18.08.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) Harbhajan Sandhu V/s. State of Punjab and Anr. CRM-M-34495-
2021 (O&M)
8. On the other hand, learned APP supported by impugned
order contending inter alia as under.
8.1. That chargesheet is already filed and Applicant must face trial.
8.2. That statements in the FIR clearly disclose the offence of
abetment to suicide.
8.3. That monetary transactions involving huge pending amount with
Applicant coupled with threat to kill if money is demanded is clearly
alleged in FIR.
8.4. That the Applicant is named in the FIR as well as in the suicide
note; therefore there is strong suspicion.
Sneha Chavan 5
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
8.5. That whether the handwriting in the suicide note is that of
deceased is a matter of trial.
8.6. That at the stage of discharge, the Court is not expected to go
into evidentiary value of the material produced on record by the
prosecution.
9. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 complainant
also supported the impugned order, contending inter alia that at the
stage of Section 227 of CrPC, it is not necessary for the Court to enter
into pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing the
evidence and probabilities, which is the function after the trial starts.
She submitted that the material gathered by investigation, ex-facie
discloses that there are suspicious circumstances against the Applicant-
Accused and therefore, charges must be framed and the accused must
be tried. She relied on Union of India V/s. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 in support of her case. She also relied upon
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption
V/s. N. Suresh Rajan and others (2014) 11 SCC 709 in support of her
case that at the stage of considering discharge application, the Court
has to proceed with an assumption that material brought on record by
prosecution is true.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the scope of both
discharge application as well as limited revisional jurisdiction being
exercised by this Court.
11. In Prafulla Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
Sneha Chavan 6
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
considering the scope of Section 227 of CrPC, where it is held that while
deciding discharge application, the Court should not act as a Trial
Court, but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited
question of whether a prima facie case is made out. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under :
“7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this
behalf. the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.
The words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function
after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency
of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court
which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a
recent decision of this Court in this Court in the case case of State
of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 where Untwalia, J.,
Sneha Chavan 7
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
speaking for the Court observed as follows:
Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in
the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his
guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there
is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at
the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial
of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to
be guilty unless the the contrary is proved. But it is only for the
purpose of deciding prima facie whether the the Court should
proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot
show that the accused committed the offence, then there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take
the place of the proof a the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the
satisfaction of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against the
accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this Court has hold that a
committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the
Sessions Judge has been made out.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In N. Suresh Rajan (Supra), once again while considering the
scope of Section 227 of CrPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under.
Sneha Chavan 8
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and
the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that
at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court
cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office
and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations
made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that
at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court
has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record
by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and
documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep
into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there
is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put
it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed
the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative
value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction the court has to
come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.
The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In State of Rajasthan V/s Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11
SCC 191, the Honb’le Supreme Court while considering the scope of
interference at the stage of framing charges or consideration of
discharge application has held as under.
“11.1 In P. Vijayan, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227
CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the
Sneha Chavan 9
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
charge and/or considering the discharge application has been
considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that
at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of
grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded
by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex
facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that
if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to
proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will
discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its
judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a
case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary
for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the
function of the court, after the trial starts.
xxxx
13. Having considered the reasoning given by the High Court and the
grounds which are weighed with the High Court while discharging the
accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted
beyond the scope of Section 227/239 CrPC. While discharging the
accused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has
considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused
is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has
considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the
complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider
the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not
permissible at all.
14. xxxx
15. As observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to consider
Sneha Chavan 10
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the
accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of
the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is
not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section
7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the
High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at
the stage of discharge application.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. It is therefore clear that while considering the discharge
application, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case. It cannot
be considered whether on the basis of material on record, the accused is
likely to be convicted or not. What is required to be considered is
whether prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the
accused is required to be further tried or not. The Court is expected to
sift through the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and it is not
necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities and mini trial is
not permitted.
15. Considering the said legal position explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, when the statements of complainant and relatives of
the deceased are perused, it is seen that the deceased had invested
money at the instance of the Applicant-Accused in a land transaction
where the deceased did not get any returns; neither the amount
invested was returned nor any profits were received and when the
amount was demanded, as it was required urgently for marriage of the
complainant, the Applicant-Accused had issued various cheques from
April 2014 till March 2015 which all got dishonored. As the marriage
Sneha Chavan 11
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
was fixed on 25.05.2015, when the deceased demanded the money, the
Applicant's bodyguard threatened to kill him with pistol. Thereafter, the
Applicant took a stand that he will not pay any money and a threat was
given that if again telephone call is made, the Applicant will kill the
deceased.
16. The amount was demanded as it was required for marriage
and the suicide has taken place after the marriage, when the money was
not returned. Therefore, the suicide has taken place after non-
availability of money for the event involved. For this reason, it is
necessary that the argument about ‘proximate involvement’ is decided
at trial, and can not be considered decisively at the stage of discharge.
17. The suicide note is found on the spot which is recorded in spot
panchnama. The suicide note contains the name of the Applicant.
Whether deceased’s hand writing is proved or not is clearly something
that can not be decided at the stage of discharge and is squarely a
matter of trial.
18. In such circumstances, in my view, enough material exists
creating suspicious circumstances and prima facie indicating
involvement of the Applicant as a reason for the deceased being left
with a situation where despite demand, huge money was not returned
coupled with a threat by the Applicant to kill him.
19. In that view of the matter, case for discharge is not made out.
Learned Sessions’ Judge, under impugned order has considered the
material available on the record and has rightly come to the conclusion
that case for discharge is not made out.
Sneha Chavan 12
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
20. Learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon Abhinav
Mohan Delkar (Supra) to contend that even if there are allegations of
constant harassment continued over a long period, in order to bring
ingredients of Section 306 read with 107 of IPC, still there has to be a
proximate prior act to find that suicide was the direct consequence of
such continuous harassment. In the case at hand, according to the
allegations, from November 2013 the deceased had invested a large
amount of Rs.59,00,000/- with the Applicant in a land transaction,
which was completed bypassing the deceased and his brother and
without taking the deceased into confidence and without returning any
money, let alone profits. The deceased and his brother complainant
were in dire need of money for the marriage of the complainant for
which repeated demands were made, but the demands were met with
refusal and a threat to kill and thereafter by a stand that the deceased
can do whatever he wants, but if again phone call is made then the
Applicant will kill the deceased. Faced with such situation, the deceased
and his brother did not get the money till marriage and thereafter,
apparently a situation is created which led the deceased committing
suicide writing name of the Applicant in suicide note. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said prima facie that there was no
proximate cause to connect the Applicant with the suicide. Therefore, in
the peculiar facts of this case, the judgment of Abhinav Mohan Delkar
(supra) will not advance the case of the Applicant.
21. Learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon Harbhajan
Sandhu (Supra) to point out that lapse of 20 days or 3 days between
the date of occurrence and the alleged proximate cause has been found
to be sufficient to quash the FIR. The ratio of the Judgment is
applicable only in principle, and it must be seen in the context of facts
Sneha Chavan 13
Cr. Revn 391-2017 (J) C3.doc
involved. As already explained, considering the FIR as well as various
statements recorded, it cannot be said, at this stage, that there was no
proximate cause connecting the Applicant with the suicide. Therefore,
the said judgment would also not advance the case of the petitioner.
22. Lastly, so far as the argument that the statement of none of the
persons who can be said to be acquainted with the deceased's
handwriting is recorded and therefore the suicide note cannot be looked
into, is concerned, suffice it to observe that neither the Sessions Court
nor this Court is expected to weigh the evidence and to consider its pros
and cons for the purpose of proving the guilt. That exercise is expected
at the stage of trial, not now.
23. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, no case for interference is made out.
24. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 14
Checking your session…