SADASHIV AMBADASRAO GAYAKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                 -1-
                                                     criwp503.19.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 503 OF 2019

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake                      .. Petitioner

versus

The State of Maharashtra & another              .. Respondents

Mr. S. G. Ladda, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.
Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel along with Ms. Meenal
Deshmukh and Mr. R. R. Jaiswal, Advocates instructed by Mr. V. A.
Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

                            CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                       RESERVED ON : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                     PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :


1.       Petitioner seeks quashment of First Information Report and

consequent proceedings pending before learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Aurangabad, bearing S.C. No. 177/2019, arising out of Crime

No. 63/2019 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, District

Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code.



2.   First Information Report was lodged by Nitin Suresh Patil, son

of the deceased.     On 25.02.2019, after completing routine work at
                                -2-
                                                    criwp503.19.odt

hotel, he returned home for lunch at about 2.00 pm. Upon enquiry

with his mother and wife, he was informed that his father, Suresh

Patil, had returned home from Court between 11.45 am to 12.00

noon and was resting in bedroom.      At around 2.20 pm, informant

asked his son, Nishant, to wake his grandfather for lunch.     When

repeated knocking yielded no response, they opened the window on

the eastern side of the house and found the deceased was lying

motionless on bed.   Informant, his family members and watchman

Devidas forcibly broke open the door. They immediately rushed the

deceased to Sai Hospital, Samarthnagar, where the deceased was

examined and declared dead. Upon returning home, the watchman

alerted the informant to a handwritten suicide note, a pen, a pair of

spectacles and a mobile phone placed on the table inside the

deceased’s room, as well as a bottle of poison on the adjacent table.

The deceased has stated in the suicide note that present Petitioner

and co-accused had been continuously subjecting him to severe

mental torture and harassment over past 20 years by filing false

cases against him including the latest complaint lodged with

Vedantnagar Police Station. Being exhausted and distressed by the

persistent harassment, the deceased consumed poison leaving
                                   -3-
                                                           criwp503.19.odt

behind the note holding the present Petitioner and co-accused

responsible for driving him to commit suicide.



3.    Consequently,    First   Information   Report   No.63/2019         was

registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad,

against   the   Petitioner   and   co-accused.     After    conclusion    of

investigation, Charge-sheet No. 52/2019 came to be filed on

02.04.2019 and RCC No. 1093/2019 was registered. On 16.04.2019,

the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as S.C. No.

177/2019.



4.    Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the only allegation

against the present Petitioner is that, he, in accordance with law, has

initiated proceedings as and when justified and warranted against

the deceased not in the individual capacity but in the capacity of

Chairman of District Co-operative Bank. It is his submission that

even if the name of the present Petitioner has been reflected in the

suicide note allegedly left behind by the deceased, it will not

constitute an offence unless there is supporting material to that

effect. It is argued that even if it is accepted that there is a political

rivalry between present Petitioner and the deceased, that per se does
                                    -4-
                                                        criwp503.19.odt

not amount to any act done by Petitioner in exercise of his rights

under the law to be the act of abetment to commit suicide. According

to him, though the proceedings were initiated against the deceased as

per law, the competent Courts / authorities have taken cognizance

thereof and in none of the cases, it was even observed that the

proceedings initiated by the Petitioner is abuse of process of law or

that it is a malicious prosecution.       According to him, in counter

reports lodged by deceased and Petitioner against each other in

respect of incident of firing in a meeting, both sides were acquitted by

competent Sessions Court by giving benefit of doubt to the accused

persons.   It is his further submission that if it is accepted that

initiation of genuine proceeding under        the law would amount to

abetment to commit suicide, the parties would be precluded from

exercising their rights as provided by law. Insofar as the contention

of   prosecution   as   well   as   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the

intervenor/informant with regard to last complaint lodged by the

Petitioner on the date of commission of suicide by the deceased is

concerned, he drew attention of the Court to the record of the

prosecution indicating that there is a report of the concerned officer

showing occurrence of such incident however, the culprits were said

to be not found by the police. It is his submission that since there is
                                  -5-
                                                        criwp503.19.odt

nothing on record to show that this report lodged by the Petitioner is

fabricated, misleading or malicious, the question of it to be termed as

the triggering point for deceased to commit suicide does not arise.

According to him, in any case, there was no reason for the deceased

to come to know about any complaint being lodged as there was no

complaint against the deceased as recorded at 9.45 am on the

relevant date.   It is his submission that since the deceased has

grievance against the Petitioner, before committing suicide, he named

the Petitioner in the suicide note, authenticity of which is also in

doubt. It is his submission that accepting the material as it is on

record, no offence is made out against the Petitioner and as such this

is not a case for exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First Information Report

and consequent criminal proceedings. In support of his submissions,

he placed reliance on following judgments :-

(i)    Patel Joshnaben Pravinkumar Patel & others vs.
       State of Gujarat & another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 835
       (Merely setting the criminal justice delivery system in motion or
       lodging a false FIR does not, by itself, constitute instigation or
       abetment to commit suicide. )

(ii)   Sanjay and others vs. The State of Maharashtra & others
       MANU/MH/2764/2018
       (Adoption of legal remedies)
                                  -6-
                                                       criwp503.19.odt

(iii)   Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
        2010(1) ACR 393(SC)
        (abetment involves a mental process of instigating or
        intentionally aiding a person to commit suicide and hyper that
        sensitive alone does not suffice.)

(iv)    Atul Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi and another
        2021 SCC OnLine Del 4107.
        (Taking legal recourse such as issuing a legal notice or lodging
        a criminal complaint against a person does not constitute
        abetment of suicide if that person subsequently takes their own
        life out of stress of fear.)

(v)     Mohit Singhal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand
        & others, (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 417
        (Demand of payment of money not abetment to suicide)

(vi)    Dilip and others vs. State of Maharashtra & others
        2016(4) BomCR (Cri) 197
        (Response of a person to a situation may differ from person to
        person, a person who was sensitive may be hurt if things did
        not happen as per his wish and may unfortunately commit an
        act, which leads to his death.)

(vii)   Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
        Department of Home and another
        (2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 706
        (Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an
        FIR/charge-sheet even after a charge-sheet has been filed to
        prevent abuse of judicial process)

5.      Learned APP opposed the petition firstly by submitting that it

is not open for this Court to ascertain the evidentiary value of the

statements recorded during the course of investigation so also the
                                  -7-
                                                       criwp503.19.odt

contents of the suicide note.    It is his submission that admittedly,

number of proceedings were initiated by Petitioner against the

deceased which is more than sufficient harassment of any individual.

It is his further submission that the complaint with regard to the

incident dated 25.02.2019 is found to be without substance and as

such summary has been filed. To support this submission, he took

this Court through the record of the enquiry of said complaint. It is

argued that in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is no

evidence in order to proceed against the Petitioner by framing charge

against him.    He took this Court through charge-sheet and other

material placed on record by prosecution.              To support   his

submissions, he relied on the following judgments :-

(i)    State of Haryana vs. Surinder Kumar
       (2000) 10 SCC 337
       (On facts High Court in revision was not justified in quashing
       the charge under S. 306 holding that the suicide was not the
       result of abetment by accused-respondent merely because
       suicide was committed 20 days after deceased was accused of
       stealing 10 gm of gold. Whether or not the allegation was based
       on truth would have to be decided on basis of evidence
       presented by prosecution before the Court.)

(ii)   Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi),
       (2009) 16 SCC 605:
       “22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted
       above, statements recorded by the police during the course of
       investigation, tend to show that on account of business
       transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein,
                                   -8-
                                                         criwp503.19.odt

      the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do
      something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie,
      it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his
      accomplices was such that the d deceased was left with no
      other option except to end his life and therefore. clause Firstly of
Section 107 IPC was attracted.”

(iii)   Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisaheb and Others,
         (2020) 3 SCC 317:
        ( The evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot
        be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional
        circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings.
        It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the
        appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed
        under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings.
        Appreciation of evidence not permissible under Section 482 of
        Cr.P.C.

(iv)    Munshiram Vs. State of rajasthan and Another.
        (2018) 5 SCC 678:
        ( The Apex Court held S. 482 has to be cautiously utilised
        while quashing FIR when the enquiry was pending and there
        are aspects which may require investigation.)

6.      Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant

vehemently opposed the petition by contending that here admittedly

there was political rivalry between the Petitioner and deceased and

owing to the same, Petitioner has instituted number of proceedings

not only against the deceased but also against his close associates. In

order to support his submissions, he drew attention of the Court to

the record indicating number of such proceedings initiated by the
                                  -9-
                                                         criwp503.19.odt

Petitioner. According to him, any individual would get frustrated by

lodging of complaints or institution of proceedings before various

authorities in the long period of 20 years.           This is more than

sufficient for any individual to drive him to commit suicide. According

to him, the evidence collected during the course of investigation,

more particularly suicide note left behind by the deceased, clearly

shows complicity of Petitioner in the crime in question and as such

extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure cannot be exercised by this Court. It is his submission

that the complaint made on the fateful day became the last straw and

the trigger point for the deceased to end his life.    According to him,

on the face of it, the material on record indicates that there was no

substance in the said complaint and as such summary came to be

filed in that regard. To support his submissions, he placed reliance

on following judgments :-

(i)    Ude Singh & others vs. State of Haryana
       (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 301
       (Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
       another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
       circumstances of each case.)

(ii)   Didigram Biksapathi & another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
       2008 (2) SCC 403.
       The Supreme Court held that the High Court should be
       cautious when exercising its inherent power under Section 482
                                 - 10 -
                                                         criwp503.19.odt

      CrPC to quash Section 306 IPC proceedings if a suicide note
      specifically names the accused and details direct acts of
      harassment or mental torture.


7.    At the outset, it needs to be recorded that this Court while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure cannot adjudicate upon any issue much less disputed

facts. The contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner with regard to

the challenge to the writing left behind by deceased would not be

considered. The material on record in charge-sheet is accepted as it

is and on that footing the petition is decided.



8.    There is no dispute about the fact that Petitioner and deceased

were political rivals. Deceased was member of Parliament. Further,

admittedly, deceased for the relevant period, was Chairman of the

District Co-operative Bank and Petitioner was member thereof.

Petitioner in the capacity of member has initiated proceedings under

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against the Chairman of the

bank as well as other office bearers attributing non-compliance of

provisions so also various other issues including mis-appropriation.

Moreover,   the   proceedings    which    are     not   instituted   under

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are not instituted against the
                                   - 11 -
                                                               criwp503.19.odt

deceased in the personal capacity rather as the Chairman of the

bank. Now, question arises as to whether per se, lodging/instituting

proceedings   as   provided       by    law     would    be    considered    as

instigation/abetment to commission of suicide.                     In order to

appreciate and decide said issue, it would be necessary to take into

account relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code which read thus :-

     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.



     107. Abetment of a thing.—

           A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

     (Firstly) - 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.

     Explanation     1.—      A        person     who,        by    wilful
     misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
                                  - 12 -
                                                           criwp503.19.odt

     fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
     procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
     done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.



        The above provisions clearly indicate that in order to constitute

an offence of abetment to commit suicide, there has to be act or

omission on the part of the accused with an intention to drive the

deceased to commit suicide or the act should be of such a nature

that it will drive such person to end his life.            There must be

instigation to commit suicide or aid intentionally for doing the same.



9.      It is the contention raised on behalf of the informant that there

are number of proceedings initiated by the Petitioner against the

deceased as well as his close associates over a period of 20 years.

These     proceedings   are   essentially   under   the     provisions   of

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and in respect of the acts

done or purported to be done in connection with District Co-operative

Bank. It is pertinent to note that these proceedings are not in the

individual capacity of deceased as well as his associates. All these

proceedings, as pointed out to this Court, pertain to the post held by

these persons in the bank and in respect of their acts in the said

official capacity.   Needless to say that it is always open for any
                                - 13 -
                                                      criwp503.19.odt

member or competent person to institute proceedings if any

irregularity is found to have been committed or any misconduct is

noticed. It is also pertinent to note that in all these proceedings, at

no point of time none of the Courts has made any observation with

regard to the abuse of process of law or the proceeding initiated being

malicious. In absence of any such observation, it would be difficult

for this Court to accept the contention of informant that the

proceedings instituted by the Petitioner were malicious in nature.



10.   Having regard to the nature of offence, what is relevant is what

accused intends or seeks to achieve by his acts rather than what is

perceived by the deceased. Unless there is material to indicate such

intention on the part of accused, essential ingredients of Section 306

r/w Section 107 of Indian Penal Code would not get attracted.



11.   In case the contention of learned Senior Counsel for informant

is accepted that filing of number of proceedings as per law, would

amount to abetment to suicide committed by person against whom

such proceedings are initiated, would lead to a situation that any

person who consistently is involved in the criminal activities or

violation of the provisions of law either in individual capacity or in
                                 - 14 -
                                                      criwp503.19.odt

the capacity of post held by him, could never be prosecuted. There

would be thus license to such person to commit illegality as the

complainants would be held responsible in case he commits suicide

in future. This may appear hypothetical situation but it is not wholly

imaginary.



12.   One more aspect needs consideration is that whether it would

be proper to prosecute the person who legitimately invokes provisions

of law to take exception to illegalities, irregularities, offences etc.

committed by another person. In considered view of this Court, it

could not be done so except only in case of malicious or vexatious

litigation in an appropriate case, wherein allegations regarding

abetment may sustain.       As discussed above there is absolutely no

material on record to hold so in the instant case. Even in case of

acquittal of deceased and present Petitioner in counter cases, there is

no    observation   about    complaint/information   being   malafide,

mischievous or false implication. The acquittal is recorded by giving

benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Similarly, though summary

is filed by police, the report on record dated 06.07.2022 indicates

that there is substance in the allegation of occurrence of incident. It
                                   - 15 -
                                                            criwp503.19.odt

is only for the reason that accused were not found, summary came to

be recorded.



13.   Most importantly, there is no nexus between the previously

instituted proceedings by Petitioner against the deceased in terms of

proximity of time to the act of suicide.            The dispute/litigation is

atleast two decades old, prior to unfortunate act of suicide by

deceased.   In this regard, reference can be made to judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of                 Mohit Singhal vs. State of

Uttarakhand, (2024) 1 SCC 417, wherein it is observed thus:

         “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the
         third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as
         correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants
         instigated   the   deceased        to    commit   suicide   by
         demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the
         third respondent from her husband by using abusive
         language and by assaulting him by a belt for that
         purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more
         than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no
         allegation that any act was done by the appellants in
         close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of
         imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
         amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
         has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
         due to her bad habits.”
                                  - 16 -
                                                         criwp503.19.odt



     Similarly, in case of Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal,

(2010) 1 SCC 707, it is observed thus :-

         “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
         that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
         under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
         examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
         also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
         find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
         to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative
         but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in
         mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
         must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
         the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
         harassment without there being any positive action
         proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
         accused which led or compelled the person to commit
         suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
         sustainable.”



     Here in this case, by no stretch of imagination it could be said

that the earlier proceedings have any connection with the act of

deceased to commit suicide.
                                - 17 -
                                                      criwp503.19.odt

14.   Apart from this, inspite of the fact that there are proceedings

being filed over a period of 20 years, there is nothing on record to

indicate even any attempt being made by the deceased to invoke

provisions of Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act,

1971, more particularly when at the relevant time he was Member of

Parliament.



15.   It is further case of prosecution that the complaint lodged by

the Petitioner against the deceased on 25.02.2019 is the trigger point

and immediate cause for his commission of suicide.         In order to

consider the said issue, it would be relevant to take note of the

documents relied upon by prosecution.      There is no dispute about

the fact that the Petitioner had lodged a complaint with concerned

Police Station in respect of an incident occurred with him on the

fateful day.   Record indicates that the complaint was recorded at

about 9.43 am. In the said complaint there is no reference of name

of the deceased. It is only when First Information Report came to be

registered at about 8.30 pm, the name of deceased came to be

revealed.   Much prior thereto i.e. in the afternoon itself deceased

ended his life.   In such circumstances there ought to have been

evidence collected during investigation to show at least that there was
                                   - 18 -
                                                            criwp503.19.odt

a complaint against deceased and that this was made known to him.

However, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that

deceased had any knowledge with regard to any complaint being

made against him before he committed suicide. The First Information

Report in this regard came to be lodged at about 10.00 pm and

Petitioner, who was present in police station to lodge his complaint,

was arrested forthwith.



16.   Thus, on the basis of documents placed on record by

prosecution itself it can be said that there is no evidence to show the

knowledge of the deceased with regard to filing of complaint by

Petitioner    with   police,   muchless     any   complaint   against   him.

Therefore, the act of filing of complaint by the Petitioner on fateful day

can not be considered as an act of instigation to commit suicide. In

any case, it was constitutional right of the Petitioner to report the

incident happened with him to police.             Since   there is record to

support occurrence of such incident, no malafides can be attributed

in that regard against the Petitioner. Right to justice under Article 21

of the Constitution of India, is indefeasible right of a victim, i.e.

Petitioner.   Thus, his act to approach police station to record his
                                 - 19 -
                                                       criwp503.19.odt

complaint, by no stretch of imagination could be termed as offence by

connecting the same with death of deceased.



17.   As far as appearance of name of Petitioner in the suicide note

of deceased is concerned, it would be relevant to take note of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Patel Joshnaben

Pravinkukmar Patel (supra), has observed thus :-

      “22. In our view, lodging an FIR, even if it is false,
      against a person, per se, does not amount to instigating
      that person to commit suicide. Besides, here the FIR was
      lodged by the deceased’s wife who had suffered injuries.
      Otherwise also, every individual has a right to take
      recourse to appropriate proceedings under law to protect
      his or her rights. Therefore, if a person sets the criminal
      justice delivery system in motion, he cannot be held liable
      for abetment to commit suicide, if the person against
      whom proceedings were initiated commits suicide.


      24.   While assessing whether a prima facie case of
      abetment to commit suicide is made out or not, the court
      must not merely consider the allegations in the suicide
      note but also the surrounding facts of the case. Merely
      because a dejected husband, or lover, out of frustration,
      ends his life and puts the blame on the accused, in his
      suicide note, is not enough to conclude that a prima facie
      case is made out against those who are blamed. The court
                                   - 20 -
                                                           criwp503.19.odt

      would have to consider whether the conduct of the
      accused complained of in ordinary circumstances would
      have driven an ordinary person, not an over sensitive
      person, to take that drastic step to end his life.



18.   No doubt, the said case pertains to the matrimonial dispute

but the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court would apply to the

present case. Mere naming of Petitioner in suicide note without any

supporting material would not be enough to accept his complicity in

crime nor he could be made to undergo rigors of trial for that sole

reason.    Therefore, factum of naming the Petitioner and putting

blame on him in the suicide note is not enough to hold him liable for

abetment to commit suicide unless there are surrounding facts

supporting such blame so also the conduct of the accused is of the

extent which would drive an ordinary person to commit suicide,

which are absent here.



19.   In the present case, the conduct as well as the intention of the

accused seems to be bonafide so as to protect his own rights and

interest of the Bank of which he is a member, by taking recourse to

the appropriate proceedings under law. Furthermore, in the absence
                                 - 21 -
                                                       criwp503.19.odt

of any positive act intended to lead the deceased end his own life, no

mens rea can be attributed to the Petitioner.



20.   In absence of any evidence to show that Petitioner intended to

drive deceased to commit suicide or acts of Petitioner were of such

nature that would lead a person to end his life, no offence of

abetment of suicide has been made out against the Petitioner. He,

therefore, cannot be compelled to undergo rigors of the criminal trial.

Consequently, petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands

allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘B1’ qua present Petitioner.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb