SURENDRA UGAMARAJ SANCHETI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                         CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2015

                   1. Surendra Ugamaraj Sancheti
                   2. Himanshu Jayant Jain
                   3. Mrs. Snehlats Jayant Jain                               ...Applicants
                              Versus
                   The State of Maharashtra                                   ...Respondent
                                                   ****
SNEHA
NITIN              Mr. Sanjeev Sawant a/w Mr. Sandeep Barve and Mr. Prathamesh Waikar
CHAVAN             and Aman Meher i/b B.K. Barve and Co. for the Applicants.
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN             Ms. Manisha Tidke, APP for Respondent/State.
Date: 2026.08.28
19:52:39 +0530
                                                   ****
                                           CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                              DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026
                   P.C. :

                   1.             Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants and learned APP for
                   the State.

                   2.             The Applicants are accused for offence punishable under
                   Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for
                   short). They are challenging Order dated 12.10.2015 passed by
                   Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune below Exhibit No. 33 in Sessions Case
                   No.94 of 2015, rejecting an application for discharge under Section 227
                   of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short).


                   3.             The case of the prosecution in short is as under.
                   3.1.    That on 06.07.2014 at 06.20 p.m. the complainant received
                   information about accidental death of one Parth Surendra Sancheti who
                   was admitted in the hospital for consumption of poison and was
                   declared dead before treatment. In postmortem, the opinion about
                   reason for death was reserved. After handing over dead body of the
                   deceased, to his step father (Applicant No.1), when police took spot


                   Sneha Chavan                                                                   1
                                                      CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



inspection, they found one diary in which a suicide note was written
alleging that the Applicants and one more person by name Hemant
Solanki are responsible for the death.
3.2.    After inquiry with relatives and neighbour of the deceased, they
received information that deceased was staying alone and none of the
family members looked after him. It was learnt that Applicant Nos. 1 to
3 are the step father, step-father’s sister and her son respectively.
Applicants are alleged to have caused mental harassment to the
deceased by ignoring his maintenance as well as taking his
responsibility.


4.             It is not disputed that chargesheet is filed in January 2015 and
thereafter the present application Exhibit No. 33 was filed seeking
discharge. By impugned order, the discharge application is rejected.
                                  SUBMISSIONS
5.             Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants
submitted as under.
5.1.    That no case of instigation is made out against the Applicants for
prosecuting them under Section 306 read with 107 of IPC.
5.2.    That prima facie the offence of abetment of suicide is not made
out against the Applicants.
5.3.    That the Applicants cannot be held responsible because there is
no proximate cause and from suicide note it appears that the deceased
was not performing well in the school/college and due to his dreams of
happy life with parents and girlfriend, being shattered, there was
emotional breakdown.
5.4.    That suicide note is dated 14th March without any year mentioned
and the actual suicide has taken place on 06.07.2014 and therefore,
there cannot be any proximate reason.


Sneha Chavan                                                                   2
                                                   CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



5.5.    That though the name of biological father Mr. Hemant Solanki is
appearing in suicide note, he has not been chargesheeted.
5.6.    That FIR has been registered after 10 days on 16.07.2014.
5.7.    That the Applicants were not even aware of whereabouts of the
deceased and about his place of residence prior to suicide and none of
them were in his contact for many years after 2007. As such there is no
proximate cause.
5.8.    That there are no allegations nor any incidents mentioned in FIR
or chargesheet that the Applicants had met the deceased reasonably
prior to his suicide.
5.9.    That there are no allegations even in the suicide note about any
quarrel or meeting or interaction of any sort between Applicants and
deceased and therefore there cannot be any instigation by the
Applicants either on 14th March or 06th July.
5.10 That none of the persons whose statements are recorded by
police have stated that they have seen the Applicants with deceased
anytime prior to suicide or in the preceding years.
5.11. That there is no circumstance mentioned which can be termed as
direct proximate cause of suicide.
5.12. That the deceased was having suicidal tendency which is evident
from the fact that in November and December, 2007 when he was
staying at hostel, in another notebook (of which panchnama is made)
deceased had written two pages indicating thoughts of suicide.
5.13. He relied on following case law in support of his case.
               (i) Madan Mohan Singh v/s. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2010)
               8 SCC 628.
               (ii) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v/s. Sate of Madhya Pradesh
               (2002) 5 SCC 371
               (iii) Abhinav Mohan Delkar v/s. The State of Maharashtra and


Sneha Chavan                                                                3
                                                   CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



               Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024 dated
               18.08.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.


6.             On the other hand, learned APP has supported the impugned
order submitting as under.
6.1.    By relying upon various statements of relatives and friends, she
submitted that the biological father was found to be not in contact from
2005 till June 2014 and since no material was found against him, he
has not been chargesheeted.
6.2.    That all the friends and relatives of the deceased have
consistently stated that the deceased was neglected by the step-family
members and he suffered mental harassment.
6.3.    That the deceased was major at the time of committing suicide
and he has specifically stated names of the Applicants in the suicide
note that is found at the spot of suicide of which proper panchnama is
drawn. Therefore, the Applicants must face trial.
6.4.    That evidentiary value as proof of guilt is not to be considered at
discharge stage and arguments of the Applicants are required to be
considered in Trial, not at discharge stage.


                             REASONS WITH CONCLUSION
7.             I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.


8.             After going through the record, it appears that the deceased
was biological son of one Hemant Solanki and Vaishali Shah. They got
married in 1992 and deceased Parth was born in 1995. Due to
matrimonial disputes, the biological parents of deceased got divorced in
2005, when deceased Parth was in 5 th standard. After divorce, initially


Sneha Chavan                                                                4
                                                    CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



the deceased was kept with his maternal uncle and grandmother at
Borivali; however, thereafter deceased Parth was taken by his mother
Vaishali with her to family of her second husband – Applicant No.1.
However, the arrangement could not be continued and mother Vaishali
was required to take adjacent flat for accommodating deceased Parth
and she was maintaining him by conducting private tuition classes. In
such circumstances, it appears that the deceased was staying alone and
has committed suicide. It appears that the deceased was looked after by
the new family only for one year and thereafter his mother was required
to arrange for a separate accommodation and take care of the deceased
by taking private tuition. It is also alleged that Applicant Nos. 2 and 3
were instigating the Applicant No. 1 not to look after the deceased and
caused his removal from the house in 2007. Therefore angle of motive
to usurp property is also involved.


9.             During investigation, the statements of following persons are
recorded :

  Sr No.                  Name                          Relation
1.             Devidas Nivrutti Dhole      Informant – Police Sub-Inspector
                                           Statement recorded during
                                           registration of FIR on
                                           16.07.2014.
2.             Darshan Harendra            Friend of deceased.
               Chouhan                     Statement recorded on
                                           09.07.2014 and 21.07.2014.
3.             Shrushti Jitendra Lele      Friend of deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           09.07.2014 and 21.07.2014.
4.             Vaishali Surendra Sancheti Mother of deceased Statement
                                          recorded on 16.07.2014 and on
                                          20.07.2014.
5.             Tanvi Mahendra Kataria      Friend of deceased.


Sneha Chavan                                                                 5
                                                     CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



                                           Statement recorded on
                                           21.07.2014.
6.             Devendra Suresh Desarda     Friend of deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           21.07.2014.
7.             Arya Hitesh Badani          Friend of deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           21.07.2014.
                                           She has stated that she is
                                           acquainted with deceased
                                           handwriting.
8.             Hemant Sureshchandra        Biological Father of deceased.
               Solanki                     Statement recorded on
                                           20.08.2014.
9.             Mamta Goguldas Hatkar       Class-teacher of deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           24.09.2014
10.            Dhaval Kirtikumar Shah      Maternal Uncle of deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           08.11.2014.
11.            Pramila Kirtikumar Shah     Maternal Grandmother of
                                           deceased.
                                           Statement recorded on
                                           08.11.2014.


10.            Before proceeding any further, 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 Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., (1979) 3
SCC 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was 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 :


Sneha Chavan                                                                  6
                                                            CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc




      “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 is 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 the case of State of Bihar v.
      Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 where Untwalia, J., 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



Sneha Chavan                                                                         7
                                                          CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



               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 at 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 State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and
Anti Corruption Vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 709, once
again while considering the scope of Section 227 of CrPC, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under.


      “29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and
      the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that



Sneha Chavan                                                                       8
                                                      CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



      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 that 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
      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


Sneha Chavan                                                                   9
                                                       CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



      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
      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



Sneha Chavan                                                                    10
                                                     CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



      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.


15.            It is important to bear in mind that this is not a stage where
the guilt is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
Court is not considering appeal over conviction or acquittal, where re-
appreciation of evidence is expected.


16.            Considering the said legal position explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, when the statements recorded by Police during
investigation are perused, it is clearly emerging that according to the
friends and close relatives of the deceased, the Applicant No.1-Step
Father of deceased was not accepting the deceased and was not
maintaining the deceased and it was at the instigation of his sister
Applicant No.3 and her son Applicant No.2. Some of the friends have
stated that the deceased had shared with them that the step-father took
care of him only for a year and thereafter neglected him. It is stated by
many friends that deceased had shared that at the instigation of
Applicant Nos. 3 and 2 (Sister and Nephew) with intention of usurping
the property, Applicant No. 1 did not permit the deceased to stay with

Sneha Chavan                                                                  11
                                                      CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



the family. Statements of a friend of deceased is also recorded who, on
being shown xerox copy of the suicide note, has stated that she is
acquainted with the handwriting of deceased-Parth.


17.            From perusal of the copy of suicide note, it is seen that though
the note begins with the narration about discord with teachers, there
are clear statements that for his suicide, the Applicants are responsible.
Applicants names as responsible persons are stated not once but twice
in the suicide note.


18.            The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicants that
suicide note is dated 14th March without any year mentioned and the
suicide has taken place on 06.07.2014 and therefore there cannot be
proximate reason and the Applicants alleged act do not have any
proximity with the suicide, is an argument which can be considered
only at the stage of trial because at the stage of discharge, this Court is
not expected to go into pros and cons of evidence. During evidence,
proximate cause or events may come to surface. It can not be assumed
that there was no proximate cause.


19.            The suicide note has be found on the spot which is recorded in
spot panchnama. Suicide note contains names of the Applicants as
responsible persons, twice. A Statement of person acquainted with the
handwriting of the deceased has been recorded. In such circumstances,
in my view, enough material exists to hold that the Applicants must face
trial. Hence case of discharge is not made out.


20.            Learned   Sessions   Judge,   under    impugned          order,      has
considered the allegations that Applicants in collusion compelled


Sneha Chavan                                                                   12
                                                      CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



deceased-Parth to reside separately and have not taken his responsibility
for education and maintenance and that he faced hatred. Learned
Sessions Judge has rightly held that, at the stage of framing of charges,
the Court is not concerned with the proof but with strong suspicion
about guilt. Learned Sessions Judge has also rightly held that the final
test of guilty is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charges.


21.            So far as the argument that biological father- Mr. Hemant
Solanki though mentioned in the FIR, has not been chargsheeted, is
concerned,         suffice it to note that non-inclusion of one co-accused
cannot automatically become ground for discharging other co-accused.


22.            So far as the argument of suicidal tendency is concerned, it is
once again important to note that whether suicidal tendency can be
taken cognizance of to convict or acquit the Applicants is a matter of
trial and cannot be a reason for discharge.


23.            It is seen from the statements of friends recorded by the Police
that deceased had shared with them that his biological father gave
sorrow to his mother who was compelled to marry again, however; his
step father also did not accept him, always hated him and the sister and
nephew of step-father instigated the step father with a view to usurp
property, not to permit deceased to stay with the family.


24.            The Judgment of Madan Mohan Singh (Supra) is relied upon
for contending that necessary ingredients of Section 306 of IPC should
be fulfilled before the Applicants are made to face trial. As explained
above, neither the Trial Court nor this Court is expected to weigh the
evidence on record to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court


Sneha Chavan                                                                   13
                                                  CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



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. Mini
trial is not permitted. Therefore, the said Judgment will not advance the
case of the Applicant.


25.              The Judgment of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra) is
relied upon to contend that mens rea is an important ingredient for the
Court to conclude about the case of abetment to suicide. In the present
case, it is stated by various friends and relatives of the deceased that the
Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in order to usurp the property, were instigating
the Applicant No.1 to neglect the deceased and not maintain him. In
view of such allegations, existence or absence of mens rea cannot be
concluded at this stage of discharge. Therefore, the said Judgment will
also not help the Applicants.


26.            The Judgment of Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra) is relied
upon to contend that even if the allegations that constant harassment
continued over a long period of time, in order to bring ingredients of
Section 306 read with 107 of IPC, still there has to be proximate cause
for suicide to be direct consequence of such continues harassment. In
the case at hand, apart from close relatives and friends of the deceased,
his class teacher in Academic Year 2013-14 (when he was studying in
first year of B.Com course) has stated that deceased had shared with
her that Applicant No.1 step father is not accepting him and he is not
bearing any expenses/maintaining him and mother is required to bear
his expenses. He had also shared that mother is required to meet him
secretly without Applicant No.1’s knowledge. In that view of the matter,


Sneha Chavan                                                               14
                                                     CR. REVN 538-15 C4.doc



whether there was proximate cause for suicide in July 2014 or not will
have to be decided at the time of trial and cannot be concluded at the
stage of discharge.


27.            It is true that many persons whose statements are recorded
have clearly stated that deceased was staying alone away from the
family for almost 9 years and therefore there is nothing in the
statements to indicate that just before the suicide, there was any overt
act by any of the Applicants or interaction which can be said to have led
to the suicide. However, this aspect of proximity will have to be
considered by the Trial Court while conducting the trial on appreciation
of evidence.


28.            Case for discharge is not made out. There is no reason to
interfere in the impugned order. Criminal Revision Application is
dismissed.


29.            Needless to mention that observations in this order are limited
to the purpose of deciding the revision application and the decision
shall be taken in trial, in accordance with law, on the merits of the case.
All contentions of the Applicants, on merits, are kept open.


                                                    (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                  15