PRIYA SANJAY DAVAHALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:37209


                                                 *1*                       30rev93o26


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2026
                                 PRIYA SANJAY DAVAHALE
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                Shri Bhagure Pralhad Chagan, Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                              …
                                            WITH
                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3459 OF 2026
                                              IN
                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2026

                              PRAKASH BABURAO BHUSARE
                                           VERSUS
                      PRIYA W/O SANJAY DAVAHALE AND ANOTHER
                                               …
                      Shri R.V. Gore, advocate for the applicant/ intervenor.
                                               …

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 17 August 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.           At the outset, learned advocate Shri R.V. Gore states

                that the informant has filed Criminal Application No.3459/2026

                for intervention in the instant Criminal Revision.


                2.           Perused the application. For the reasons stated

                therein, Criminal Application No.3459/2026 is allowed. The

                applicant therein is permitted to intervene and learned advocate
                                  *2*                       30rev93o26


Shri R.V. Gore is permitted to assist the learned APP.


3.          By    this   Criminal   Revision    Application,     the

applicant/ accused No.4 challenges the impugned order dated

09.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on the application below exhibit-21

in Sessions Case No.516/2024, whereby the said application filed

by the applicant under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking discharge from the offences

punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya

Nyay Sanhita, 2023, came to be rejected.


4.          According to the applicant, she is sister-in-law of the

deceased. The applicant is accused No.4 in FIR bearing Crime

No.0547/2024 registered with the Cidco Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 read with Section

3(5) of the BNS, on 25.08.2024.


5.          As per the FIR, the informant (Prakash Bhusare) is

the father of deceased Dr.Pratiksha Pritam Gaware. The deceased

was married to accused No.1 (Dr.Pritam Gaware) on 27.03.2024.

The deceased as well as accused No.1 were having MBBS

degree and were medical professionals. After marriage, the
                                   *3*                   30rev93o26


deceased went to cohabit with accused No.1 at village

Karanjkheda, however, her husband Dr.Pritam was doubting her

character and therefore, there were quarrels between them. On

01.08.2024, the deceased got employment at MGM Hospital,

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar     and therefore, the couple took a

house on rent in N-6 area of CIDCO. However, on 24.08.2024,

the deceased committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan.

Accused No.1 and landlord admitted the deceased to hospital.

Investigation was set in motion and the body of deceased was

sent for postmortem. The police arrived on the spot and during

search, they found suicide note written by the deceased and same

was seized. After funeral,   the FIR was lodged on 25.08.2024

against the husband of deceased.


6.          According to the applicant, initially FIR was only

registered against the husband i.e. Dr. Pritam, however, the

informant has given supplementary statement and on the basis of

which, the names of father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-

law (applicant) came to be added. After completion of

investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the

accused persons and the case is registered as Sessions Case
                                 *4*                       30rev93o26


No.516/2024. The applicant has filed the application under

Section 250 of the BNSS for discharge, which came to be

rejected by the impugned order dated 09.02.2026.


7.          Learned advocate for the applicant/ accused No.4

submits that there is no material against the applicant so as to

prosecute her before the Trial Court. The applicant is married on

08.03.2020 i.e. prior to the marriage of the deceased and accused

No.1. She has been staying separately at Dharashiv at her

matrimonial house along with her husband and child of four

years.


8.          Learned advocate for the applicant submits that even

bare perusal of the suicide note would not disclose anything

incriminating against the applicant/ accused No.4. The main

allegation is against accused No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased.

According to him, had there been any harassment to the deceased

at the hands of the present applicant, same could have been

reflected in the suicide note which runs into four pages, however,

except one line there is no further allegation against the

applicant. The statements recorded by the police are of interested

witnesses and by way of general allegations, they have
                                  *5*                        30rev93o26


deliberately tried to implicate the present applicant though the

said witnesses are very much aware that the applicant is residing

miles away from the house of deceased. Even otherwise, on the

date of incident, the applicant was not in town where the

deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, by no stretch of

imagination, the applicant is said to have abetted the crime in

question.


9.           Learned advocate for the applicant further submits

that learned Trial Court, instead of considering the material in the

charge-sheet, has given unnecessary weightage to the aspect that

the offence is serious one. Learned advocate states that though

the offence is serious one, however, learned Trial Court ought to

have considered the fact that material against the applicant is

lacking to prosecute her. Learned advocate has taken me through

the impugned order. By referring to paragraph Nos.17 to 20, he

tried to emphasis that learned Trial Court has virtually given no

reason as to why the role attributed to the applicant is of serious

nature, which makes the applicant liable for prosecution for the

alleged offences. Learned Trial Court has committed error while

passing the impugned order. The applicant, who is lady and
                                  *6*                        30rev93o26


staying with her husband and child at her matrimonial house at

Dharashiv, may not be made to suffer from agony of trial.

Learned advocate, therefore, submits that the Criminal Revision

Application deserves to be allowed and the applicant needs to be

discharged as there is no sufficient material against the applicant.


10.          Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the instant

revision application. He submits that the offence is serious one. A

lady, who was 26 years old doctor and was having bright future,

was compelled to commit suicide and this Court may not take a

lenient view for discharging the applicant. On the contrary, the

record suggests that the applicant deserves to be prosecuted for

the offence charged with. Learned Trial Court has rightly rejected

the application for discharge. Therefore, there is no merit in this

revision and it is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.


11.          Learned advocate Shri Gore appearing for the

intervenor, while assisting learned APP, took this Court to the

contents of the suicide note and pointed out that the present

applicant has been named in the suicide note, which itself is

sufficient to hold that the applicant has abetted the crime. Shri

Gore reiterated the submissions of learned APP and prayed for
                                  *7*                        30rev93o26


dismissal of this revision application.


12.          After hearing learned advocates for the rival parties

and going through the impugned order and record available, I

find that learned Trial Court appears to have placed considerable

emphasis on the seriousness of the offence without adequately

examining whether the material collected during investigation

disclosed the ingredients of the offences specifically against the

applicant. Thus, learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned

order, was virtually carried away by the seriousness of offence

rather than considering the material against the applicant. I have

gone through the contents of the charge-sheet. The statements of

relatives of the deceased have been relied upon by the

prosecution. On perusing the said statements, I find that the

allegations against the applicant are of general nature. Indeed, the

deceased, who was hardly 26 years old and was medical

professional, has committed suicide by writing four pages suicide

note wherein, there is minute reference of the applicant. At the

stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court

is required to examine the material placed on record with a view

to ascertain whether the same, if accepted at its face value,
                                 *8*                      30rev93o26


discloses sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

The Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of

evidence or hold a mini-trial. However, where the material gives

rise only to a suspicion and not a grave suspicion of the accused

having committed the alleged offence, discharge may be

warranted. Apart from allegation of general nature in the

statements of witnesses and minute reference of the applicant in

the suicide note, I find no other serious incriminating material

against the applicant so as to attract ingredients of offences

punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 read with Section 3(5) of

the BNS.


13.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous cases right

from the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.,

(2002) 5 SCC 371, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat &

Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628 and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of

U.P. & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 has emphasized that the

requirement of specific abetment, intention and nexus/proximity

and observed that there is general tendency of relatives of the

deceased to implicate her in-laws in the crime.


14.         What is important to note in the case in hand is that
                                 *9*                        30rev93o26


the applicant is admittedly married prior to the marriage of the

deceased and she is staying along with her husband and child at

Dharashiv which is almost 250 kilometers from the house of

deceased. The deceased committed suicide within four months of

her marriage with accused No.1 (Dr.Pritam). The fact that the

applicant was residing separately at Dharashiv, at a considerable

distance from the matrimonial residence of the deceased, is a

relevant circumstance which assumes significance in the absence

of any specific material showing her frequent presence,

participation in matrimonial disputes, or any particular act of

cruelty, harassment, instigation or intentional aid attributable to

her. There could be one or two occasions on which the present

applicant might have come to meet the deceased and by that

itself would not mean that the applicant has virtually participated

in the alleged crime in question. It is trite law that mere

allegation of harassment, in the absence of material indicating

instigation, intentional aid or other conduct falling within the

statutory definition of abetment, would not by itself constitute

the offence of abetment of suicide. The learned Trial Court,

therefore, erred in treating the seriousness of the offence and the

possibility of the prosecution proving its allegations at trial as
                                        *10*                      30rev93o26


      sufficient reasons to decline discharge, instead of examining

      whether the material on record furnished sufficient ground for

      proceeding against the applicant. Consequently, the applicant

      cannot be compelled to undergo the process of trial merely on the

      basis of suspicion which does not rise to the level of grave

      suspicion.


      15.          In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this

      Criminal Revision Application. Accordingly, the Criminal

      Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated

      09.02.2026 is quashed and set aside and the application exhibit-

      21 is allowed. The applicant/accused No.4 is discharged from the

      offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 108 read with

      Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


      16.          It is made clear that the observations made herein

      are   confined   to   the    allegations   and   material   against

      applicant/accused No.4 and shall not be construed as an

      expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case

      against the other accused.


kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )