SAVITA D/O. MADHAV VINKAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41824-DB
                                                                         928-WP-1362-2022.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        928 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2022

                                     Savita D/o. Madhav Vinkare
                                               Versus
                                The State Of Maharashtra And Another

          Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No. 1
          Mrs. A. D. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (appointed)

                                                            CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                            DATE  :SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.            This Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

          seeks quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No. 284/2022

          registered with Akhada Balapur Police Station, Dist. Hingoli, for the offences

          punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)

          (va) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

          consequential charge-sheet so also framing of charge against the Petitioner

          by the Trial Court.


          2.            In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21.07.2022, a

          girl from Ashram school committed suicide by hanging herself. There were

          injuries on her wrist. First informant is the father of the deceased. He claims

          that present Petitioner is the warden. It is also stated in the First Information

          Report that the deceased committed suicide being fed up with the



                                              Page 1 of 5
                                                               928-WP-1362-2022.odt



harassment caused in the Ashram school. On the basis of the said report,

Crime No. 284/2022 came to be registered with Akhada Balapur Police

Station, District Hingoli. Investigation came to be done in the crime which

culminated into filing of charge-sheet before the competent Court.


3.           Learned   Counsel    for   Petitioner   submits   that    the    First

Information Report vaguely makes allegations against the Petitioner hat

behind the back of the informant, the dead body of the deceased was

brought to the Government Hospital. According to him, being the Head

Master of the Ashram school, when the deceased was found in injured

condition/unnatural death, it was absolutely necessary for the Petitioner to

rush her to the hospital first. It is his further contention that during the

course of investigation, the writings of the deceased were secured by the

Investigating Officer which indicate that altogether for different reason than

the one which could be attributed to the present Petitioner, the deceased

committed suicide. According to him, the statements of other girl students in

the hostel do not indicate involvement of the Petitioner in the crime. He,

therefore, seeks Petition to be allowed. Finally, it is submitted that the

proceedings for quashment filed by similarly placed accused is allowed by

order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Criminal Application No. 3543/2022.


4.           Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed

the Petition. It is their contention that in the First Information Report, there


                                   Page 2 of 5
                                                            928-WP-1362-2022.odt



are allegations against the present Petitioner, which according to him, are

supported by the statement of mother of victim recorded under Section 164

of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further argued by learned Counsel for

the informant that the writings obtained during the course of investigation

are not sent for cross-examination of the handwriting expert. In short,

informant’s counsel makes a grievance with regard to the investigation

being not carried out effectively in this regard. They, however, don’t dispute

the fact about order being passed in application of co-accused.


5.    In the peculiar facts of the present case, it would be relevant to take

note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana

and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (SUPP)1 335 , which gives

guidelines for the decision of quashment of criminal proceedings. Relevant

observations made therein read thus :

          “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
          relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
          the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
          decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
          under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
          of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
          above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
          illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
          prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
          secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
          lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
          channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
          to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
          such power should be exercised.


                                  Page 3 of 5
                                                  928-WP-1362-2022.odt



(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”


                        Page 4 of 5
                                                               928-WP-1362-2022.odt



6.           Perusal of charge-sheet does not indicate that the present

Petitioner has caused any harassment to the deceased in order to accept his

involvement in the crime in question. Even if for the sake of argument the

statement of mother of the victim is accepted, apart from the fact that it is

hearsay, the said statement is not enough to make out a case of abetment to

commit suicide by the deceased. In any case, there is evidence to show that

the deceased could have committed suicide for altogether different reason

as it appears from the writings left behind by her. The statements of other

girl students do not indicate involvement of the Petitioner in the crime. As

such, there is no evidence in order to compel the Petitioner to undergo the

rigors of trial. Thus, it is a fit case for allowing the Petition. In the result,

Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B1’, ‘B2’.


7.           Fees of the appointed Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is

quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-

Committee, Aurangabad.


                                                       (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                    Page 5 of 5