Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Shashimohan AwasthiversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case of abetment of suicide exists against the applicants and therefore rejected the revision applications.
Summary
The deceased, a teacher at PVR Science Hub Classes, allegedly gave Rs 20 lakh to the applicants for a partnership that was never formalised. He was reportedly prevented from teaching elsewhere, threatened with false police cases, and subsequently committed suicide by stepping onto railway tracks. The prosecution alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, while the applicants contended there was no evidence of a financial transaction or intent to instigate. The court examined WhatsApp chats, witness statements, and financial records, finding that the applicants admitted receipt of Rs 5 lakh and that the evidence indicated a prima facie case of abetment. Consequently, the court rejected all the criminal revision applications and refused the applicants’ request for a stay.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence establishes a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC against the applicants.
- Whether the discharge applications should be dismissed on the basis that no case exists against the accused.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 107, 306
Subjects
- abetment of suicide
- Section 306 IPC
- prima facie case
- discharge application
- criminal revision
- partnership fraud
- suicide
- evidence
Judgment
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2026
Pramod Ramesh More ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
VAISHALI Tulinj Police Station and anr. ...Respondent/s
ANIL
TIKAM WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2025
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM Rahul Basantilal Jain ...Applicant/s
Date:
2026.10.01 VERSUS
18:15:27 +0530
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2026
Mr. Narsingh Champalal Parmar Ram ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2025
Vaibhav Shashimohan Awasthi ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Amit A. Katarnaware (thr. VC) a/w. Mr. Aditya A. Katarnaware a/w.
Mr. Nitesh Lokhande, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Revn. Application
No. 171/2026.
Mr. Prem Kumar Pandey a/w. Sneha Mishra a/w. Kajal Mishra a/w.
Devendra Agrawal a/w. Rishabh Jain, Advocates for Applicant in Cri. Revn.
Application Nos. 16/2025 and 83/2026.
Dr. Vaishav Awasthi, Party in person in Cri. Revn. Application No.
536/2025 present.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vinay V. Nair a/w. Mr. Venkatesh Jairam & Ms. Riddhi P. Tendulkar,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants in respective Revision
Applications, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. The challenge in these Revision Applications is to the order
passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Vasai, whereby the Ld. Sessions
Judge has rejected the discharge applications of the Applicants. As all the
Applicants have challenged the same order, hence, I am deciding the
Revision Applications by this common order.
3. It is prosecution's case that the deceased was working as a
teacher in the private class named PVR Science Hub Classes run by the
Applicants. It is alleged that on the assurance of the Applicants, the
deceased had given Rs. 20,00,000/- to the Applicants for becoming a
partner in PVR classes. But they neither added him as a partner in their
classes, nor allowed him to take classes at any other places. Furthermore,
they threatened him that if he takes classes at other places, they will
implicate him in a false police case. Due to acts of the Applicants, on
08.11.2019, the deceased committed suicide by coming under a train at
Vasai Railway Station.
4. It is contention of learned counsels for the Applicants and party
in person that no evidence is produced on record to show that the
Page 2 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
deceased had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the Applicants for becoming a partner
in the said classes. Learned counsel further submitted that the WhatsApp
chats between deceased and the First Informant (brother of deceased)
indicate that deceased was frustrated and unable to teach properly and out
of frustration, he has committed suicide. Learned counsels further
submitted that the statement of Ms. Anupama Singh (fiancée of the
deceased) shows that he was frustrated and had suicidal thoughts and
tendencies even before joining the classes of the Applicants. He has not
referred anything against the Applicants and there is no reference of
Rs.20,00,000/- given to the Applicants.
5. Learned counsels further submitted that deceased has not left
suicide note behind him. It is not clear whether death of the deceased was
suicidal or accidental. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased
was frustrated because the students were unhappy with his teaching. It is
clear that he committed suicide out of frustration and not by instigation or
abetment by the Applicants. It is further submitted that to prove the
abetment of suicide - instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid is required.
From the documents and evidence produced on record, there is nothing to
show that Applicants abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
But these facts are not considered by the Learned Sessions Judge and has
passed impugned order, which is erroneous. Learned counsels for the
Applicants fairly submitted that deceased had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the
Page 3 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
Applicants. The Applicants and party in person have paid him
Rs.12,00,000/- and that record is part of the charge-sheet and requested to
allow the Revision Application. Learned counsels for the Applicants relied
on:
(i) Santosh Kiran Darekar V/s. State of
Maharashtra (MANU/MH/2528/2016)
(ii) Sanju V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh
(MANU/SC/0392/2002)
(iii) Sanjay Kumar K. Shinde V/s. State of
Maharashtra (MANU/MH/2333/2014).
(iv) Union of India V/s. Prafulla Kumar Samal
(1979) 3 SCC 4
(v) Yogesh V/s. State of Maharashtra
(MANU/MH/0024/2015)
(vi) Sanjay Kumar Rai V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2022) 15 SCC 720.
(vii) Asim Shariff V/s. National Investigation Agency
(2019) 7 SCC 148.
(viii) Ram Prakash Chadha V/s. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
(ix) State of Orissa V/s. Debendra Nath Padhi
(2005) 1 SCC 568
(x) M. Arjunan V/s. State (2019) 3 SCC 315.
(xi) S.S. Chheena V/s. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010)
12 SCC 190.
(xi) State of West Bengal V/s. Indrajit Kundu
(2019) 10 SCC 188.
(xii) Sudhakar V/s. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6
SCC 671
Page 4 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
(xiii) Smt.Darshana Devi V/s. State 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 126.
(xiv) Waikhom Yaima Singh V/s. State of Manipur
(2011) 13 SCC 125.
(xv) Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. 2025 INSC 990
(xvi) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr AIR 2024 Supreme Court 4531.
(xvii) Amit Padmakar More V/s. State of Maharashtra
2026 SCC Online Bom 3740.
6. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
Respondent No.2 that deceased committed suicide due to mental
harassment by the Applicants. The Applicants had taken Rs.20,00,000/-
from the deceased for giving him partnership in the said classes. But in
spite of taking the said amount, they did not make him a partner. They
also forced the deceased to stop taking classes at other institutions and
made him take extra lectures at PVR classes against his will. The aforesaid
facts have been stated by the First Informant in his statement. WhatsApp
chats between the deceased and his brother show that deceased was
mentally tortured by the Applicants. The statement of witness Mr.
Gaurishankar Dube shows that the Applicants had taken the amount from
the deceased but they were not making him a partner in their classes and
he was not allowed to take classes elsewhere. Subsequently, when the
deceased expressed a desire to leave the classes, he was threatened with
Page 5 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
implication in false criminal cases and sending defamatory letters to other
coaching classes. The Applicants never intended to execute the partnership
deed and kept on putting it off for various reasons, as is evident from the
WhatsApp chats between the deceased and applicants. Learned APP
further submitted that there is prima facie case against the Applicants. The
Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order. No interference
is required in it and requested to reject the Revision Applications. Learned
counsel for the First Informant relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/0963/2019
(ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
MANU/SC/0275/2021
7. I have heard all learned counsel and party in person. Perused
impugned order and documents produced on record. Admittedly, the
deceased was working as a teacher in the classes of the Applicants. It is
alleged that Applicants had taken Rs. 20,00,000/- from the deceased to
make him a partner in their classes but did not make him a partner. The
Applicants have admitted that they have received Rs.5,00,000/- from the
deceased. It is contention of the Applicants that they have paid
Rs.12,00,000/- to the deceased. At this stage, this Court cannot ascertain
whether the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was repaid against the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- or whether it constituted the remuneration of the deceased.
Statement of witness Mr. Gaurishankar Dube shows that the deceased told
Page 6 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
him that Applicants had taken Rs. 20,00,000/- from him on the assurance
of making him a partner but no partnership deed was drawn to that effect.
In fact, the Applicants demanded more money later and forced the
deceased to stop taking classes at other institutions and instead compelled
him to take extra lectures in PVR classes against his wishes. In the
WhatsApp chats dated 26.09.2019, 27.09.2019 and 10.10.2018 between
the Complainant and deceased, the deceased informed the Complainant
that if he left PVR Classes, the Applicants threatened to tarnish his
reputation by circulating defamatory letters to other coaching classes and
initiate false criminal proceedings against him and his family, thereby
causing apprehension regarding his future employment.
8. The statement of Ms. Anupama Singh (fiancée of deceased)
shows that the deceased had informed her that the Applicants had taken
an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- lakhs from him on the assurance of making
him a partner, but no partnership deed was executed in his favor and the
amount was not returned. She further states that the deceased had
expressed frustration and a desire to commit suicide. The statement of the
loco pilot indicates that the incident was not an accident, as the deceased
had slept on the railway track and, despite the loco pilot applying the
emergency brakes, the deceased was run over and his body was cut into
pieces. Thus, it cannot be said that the incident was accidental; rather, it
indicates that the deceased had committed suicide.
Page 7 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
9. It is contention of the ld. Counsel for the Applicants that there
was no abetment or instigation by the Applicants to the deceased to
commit suicide. The offence of abetment of suicide is specified under
Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). It reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide.—
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.
Section 107 of IPC defines abetment as under:
Section 107 of IPC defines abetment
107. Abetment of a thing.—
A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(First)— Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)— 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
(Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
The dictionary meaning of instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate
another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by
any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of
express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.
10. Keeping in view the above legal position, it is required to see
the evidence produced by prosecution against the Applicants. It shows that
Page 8 of 9
5-REVN-171-2026 (CR) PRAMOD MORE(3).doc
Tikam
due to acts of the Applicants, the deceased was frustrated and he vented
his frustration with his brother, friend and fiancée. It is contention of the
Applicants that WhatsApp chats of the deceased produced on record shows
that he was frustrated due to other reasons. In my view, there is prima
facie case against the Applicants as they admit about accepting Rs. 5 lakhs
from the deceased. Statements of witnesses show that due to the acts of
the Applicants, the deceased has committed suicide.
11. It is a settled principle of law that, while considering an
application for discharge, the Court has to ascertain whether there is no
case whatsoever against the accused. In the present case, the WhatsApp
chats, statements of witnesses and financial transactions indicate a prima
facie case against the Applicants.
12. I have gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for
the Applicants. The facts of cited cases and present case are different. In
view of above, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Applications are rejected.
13. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks stay to the order,
request for stay is refused.
14. Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly.
15. All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 9 of 9
Checking your session…