VASANT PANDHARINATH PARSEWAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:23721-DB
                                                                             925.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2024


          1. Vasant S/o Pandharinath Parsewar
          2. Shaikh Babar S/o Shaikh Umar
          3. Shridhar S/o Nagnath Bokan                      … Petitioners

                VERSUS

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          2. Megha W/o Pravin Malewar                        … Respondents

                                         …..
          Mr. Phad Avinash A, Advocate for the Petitioners
          Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
                                         …..

                                        CORAM :       NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                        DATE      :   17.06.2026

          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the
          learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.


          2.    None for Respondent No.2.


          3.    The order dated 16.01.2025 shows that, genuine attempt to
          serve Respondent No.2 was made and she was not responding to
          the police. Therefore, there was no hurdle in proceeding with the
          matter.


          4.    This Petition is for quashing FIR No.34/2022, registered with
          Parli City Police Station, Beed for the offence punishable under
          Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
                                            1
                                                                     925.odt


(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 39 of the
Maharashtra      Money    Lending       (Regulation)   Act,   2014   and
consequential charge-sheet bearing RCC No.279/2022 pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli.



5.   The aforesaid crime and criminal proceedings arise out of the
report lodged by Respondent No.2, who is the widow of Deceased –
Pravin Malewar, who committed suicide. It is the case of
Prosecution that, the Informant was residing with the deceased –
husband and children. The deceased – husband was running the
business at Parli. In the year 2013, the deceased had purchased a
house but due to indebtedness, it was required to be sold. The
deceased was constantly under pressure as he was unable to repay
the loan despite selling the house. On 17.02.2022, the deceased was
under depression and he scribed a note stating the names of the
creditors,   their   mobile   numbers      and   outstanding    amount.
According to the Informant, the creditors mentioned in the note,
were harassing the deceased, despite repayment with the interest.
The deceased was found hanging in the shop on 18.02.2022. The
Applicants are amongst them, who alleged to have harassed the
deceased for repayment of loan.



6.   The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, the
aforesaid crime was registered against in all sixteen (16) persons
and charge-sheet came to be submitted against fourteen (14)
persons. Some of the FIR named accused, namely, Subhash Munde,
Shrikrushna Bhange, Prakash Chidrewar, Vishnu Munde and
Shamrao Katkade had approached this Court in Writ Petition

                                    2
                                                                925.odt


Nos.3522/2022, 557/2023, 603/2023, 604/2023 and 729/2023,
respectively. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated
30.04.2024,   quashed     the   FIR   and   consequential   criminal
proceedings against the said Petitioners. He submits that, the
Applicants are similarly placed as that of the said Co-accused,
against whom the proceedings are quashed, and therefore are
entitled for the same relief.


7.   It is submitted by the learned APP that, names of the
Petitioners are reflected in the note scribed by the deceased. The
deceased had borrowed the money from the FIR named accused
persons and they were demanding the same despite the deceased
had made repayment. He submits that, the Petition be dismissed.
However, he does not dispute that, the aforesaid Co-accused
approached this Court and this Court had quashed the criminal
proceedings qua them.


8.   Only material against the Applicants is that, their names are
reflected in the note scribed by the deceased and the amount with
percentage mentioned against their names. At the bottom of the
said note, it is stated that, he was very much harassed. There is
nothing to show that, a more severe role is attributed to the
Petitioners than the role attributed to the said writ Petitioners,
against whom the criminal proceedings are quashed. The
Petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the said
Petitioners, against whom the criminal proceedings are quashed. It
would be profitable to reproduce the observations of the Division
Bench in the aforesaid Writ Petition : -


                                  3
                                                                      925.odt


“10. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and relevant
papers of investigation. A note scribed by deceased which was handed
over to informant shows that names of fifteen persons are mentioned
with their mobile numbers with amounts and rate of interest. At the
bottom of the list, it is scribed that deceased sustained harassment. We
have carefully gone through FIR, supplementary statements of the
informant and her brother. It transpires that deceased was indebted
He had borrowed money from the applicants and other persons.
Applicants and others were insisting for repayment. Deceased was
being harassed on telephone and by visiting his shop.


11. The note scribed by the deceased except mentioning names and the
amount outstanding does not disclose the manner in which the
harassment was caused. Similar is the case with the statement What
emerges is that the recorded during the investigation. applicants and
others were demanding their outstanding and There is nothing on
record to indicate that persisting for the same all the applicants
conspired together and with common intention subjected the deceased
to such a torture to drive him to commit suicide The magnitude of the
harassment is not of such a nature so as to leave no alternative to the
deceased but to commit suicide. We find no material which satisfies
parameters of Section 107 of IPC.


12. Though it is mentioned in FIR that deceased had repaid
outstandings with interest, no material is collected during
investigation to support this allegation. Some endeavour should have
been made by informant or witnesses to indicate repayment. In all
probability the deceased would not have sustained the claims of the
accused.


13. FIR. and supplementary statement of the informant disclose that
she was not even knowing few creditors like Mrs. Aghav, Mrs.
Agarwal. We have gone through letter dated 08.03.2022 addressed by
the Assistant Registrar to the Investigating Officer stating that no
complaint was received against the applicants for having undertaken
money lending transaction against the applicants and others. The
material on record does not indicate multiple money lending
transaction with individual applicants. At the most it can be said to be
isolated instance of money lending We are of the considered opinion
that it does not fall within the purview of Section 39 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending Act.


14 . Learned Counsel for the applicants has rightly referred to
judgment in the matter of Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar (supra) Relevant
paragraph nos. 11 and 12 are as follows:
     “11. The above discussion makes it clear that for it to be a
     business there has to be a continuous and systematic
     activity by application of labour or skill with a view of

                                  4
                                                                       925.odt


     earning income when it could be called "business". In
     order to do business of money lending, it would be
     necessary for the State to point out multiple activities of
     money lending done by the petitioner. Merely referring to
     one isolated transaction claimed to be a loan transaction
     or money lending would not be enough to show that the
     petitioner was involved in "business of money lending"
     without licence. The FIR in the present matter read as a
     whole does not spell out that the petitioner was doing
     "business of money lending". This being so, on the basis of
     such FIR the prosecution cannot be maintained"

     12. We have gone through the various documents put on
     record by the petitioner as well as the respondents. There
     are not even vague allegations, apart from the present
     transaction of 1982, that petitioner was advancing loans
     to people and getting properties transferred. This is apart
     from the fact that it would be necessary for the FIR itself
     to spell out in clear terms the transactions which would
     prima facie show that business as such of money lending
     was being involved into without there being a valid
     licence.”

15. Learned Counsel for the applicants have referred to judgment in the
matter of Netai Dutta (supra) to buttress that mere mentioning names
of accused in the suicide note would not be sufficient, in the absence of
any specific act or incident. We follow the ratio. We have considered
judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu (supra). We follow ratio laid down in paragraph no. 12 which is
as follows:
     "12. At the outset, we intend to address the issue regarding
     the applicability of Section 306 IPC in the facts of the
     present case. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide
     and Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They read
     as follows:

     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.”

16. Further reliance is placed on judgment rendered in Jitendra
Mohan Gupta (supra). We are in agreement with a view taken in that
matter. Paragraph no.6 is as follows:
     "6. We have carefully gone through the charge-sheet and the
     suicide note. A bare perusal of the suicide note reveals that
     the debt which the petitioner owed to the deceased was only
     one of the three reasons which had put the deceased under
     stress. It is necessary to remember that abetment involves a


                                   5
                                                                               925.odt


            mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a
            person to do a thing. Each person has his own ideas of
            selfesteem and selfrespect. Merely because a person is
            unable to bear the stress, one cannot jump to the conclusion
            that the act or the circumstance which causes the stress is a
            situation created with an intention that the deceased
            should commit suicide."
      17. Learned APP refers to judgment of Didigam Bikshapathi (supra) to
      buttress that the suicide note refers to act of harassment and name of
      the applicants/petitioners so as to make out a case for offence under
      Section 306 of IPC. We have considered relevant facts of that case.
      There, the suicide note referred to the background in which the victim
      took extreme step of committing suicide and roles played by the accused
      persons. In the present matter, note is silent regarding role played by the
      applicants/petitioners as well as extent of harassment. The judgment is
      distinguishable and cannot be made applicable.”


9.      In view of the above aspects of the matter, the Petitioners are
entitled for the same relief. Hence, the following order :

                                      ORDER

[I]     The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent of the Petitioners in
        terms of Prayer Clauses – (B) and 12(BB).




                                               [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]




Sameer/June-2026




                                           6