AKSHAY SHARAD GAWANDE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41822-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2023

           1.    Akshay S/o Sharad Gawande
           2.    Dyaneshwar S/o Dattu Patil                  ....Petitioners

                 Versus

           1.    The State of Maharashtra
           2.    Bhaskar Tatyarao Pathrikar                  ...Respondents


           Mr. B. N. Magar, Advocate for the Petitioner
           Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                   CORAM      : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                   DATED      : 3rd September, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    In spite of service, none has caused appearance for Respondent No.2.

           This indicates that Respondent No.2 has no inclination to oppose present

           petition. Hence, matter is heard in absence of Respondent No. 2.


           2.    This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the present

           petitioners seeks quashment of FIR in connection is Crime No. 0334 of 2023

           registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence

           punishable under section 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

           Code, so also seeks quashment of charge-sheet No. 317 of 2023 filed in

           Sessions Case No. 289/2024 pending before Assistant Sessions Judge-4,


           CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                  1 of 7
Aurangabad and order of issuance of process dated 01/08/2024 passed in

Sessions Case No. 289 of 2024.


3.    The prosecution case stems from the First Information Report lodged by

the informant/Respondent No.2-Bhaskar Tatyarao Pathrikar, is that in order

to pay for an impending bank loan default, he borrowed a sum of ₹2,00,000/-

from Petitioner No.1 through the mediation of Petitioner No.2, subject to

repayment within two months alongside a monthly interest of ₹10,000/-.

While the informant paid the interest for the first month online, he defaulted

in the second month due to financial impediment in his business.

Consequently, on 23/03/2023 at around 4:00 PM, Applicant No.1 demanded

immediate payment over the phone and subsequently barged into the

informant’s residence verbally abusing him. It's the further case that both the

Applicants aggressively confronted the informant, threatening him and

demanding that he immediately sell his house or agricultural land to clear the

debt, while steadfastly refusing to vacate the premises.


4.    During the ongoing harassment, the informant’s 22-year-old son-

Ashutosh Pathrikar, called his father, expressing severe distress over the

situation and refusing to return home until the Petitioners go away. As both

Petitioners continued their coercive demands, verbal abuse, and threats,

Ashutosh left on his motorcycle in anger at around 6:30 PM, after which his

CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                   2 of 7
mobile phone was switched off. A missing person complaint was filed and a

search was conducted which was unsuccessful. Afterwards, the motorcycle

was found abandoned near the Kayagaon bridge on 24/03/2023, and his

body was subsequently recovered from the water on 26/03/2023 at around

11:30 AM with the assistance of the fire brigade. Thus, FIR was lodged and

Chargesheet came to be filed.


5.    The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this is a case

instituted in order to cause harassment to present Petitioners. He submits that

He draws attention of     the court to FIR and Chargesheet on record to

substantiate that present Petitioners cannot be said to have instigated and

abetted that commission of sucide as there is absence of mens rea, so also the

question of there being proximity does not arise as the alleged threats were

hurled to father of the deceased i.e. informant., but the son of

informant/deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, offence under section

306 cannot sustain against the Petitioners. It's further argued that there is

variation and improvement in the statements of witnesses recorded as

apparent from record. To support the above contentions, learned counsel for

the Petitioners places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi), 2009

(16) SCC 605 and the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in case


CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                  3 of 7
of Vacchalabai w/o Pralhad Jondhale vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal

Application No. 4080 of 2022.


6.    Learned APP opposed the Petition. By drawing attention of the court to

FIR and statements of witnesses it is argued that this shows existence of prima

facie offence under section 306 of IPC is made out. It's is further submitted

that on account of threats given and abuses issued by present Petitioners to

the Information, which was seen by the deceased/Son of Informant, he

committed suicide which clearly shows there is proximity between the alleged

threats and the act of commission of suicide, so also statements of witnesses

recorded indicate that deceased was in mentally distress just before he

committed suicide.


7.    Before going into facts of the case, it would be relevant to discuss the

ingredients of section 306 of IPC. In order to prove the offence under section

306 of IPC, there must be a case of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid,

coupled with a proximate/live link between the act of the accused and the

commission of suicide. Mere use of abusive language or casual threats,

without any direct or indirect act or mens rea to push the deceased to commit

suicide, would not amount to "abetment".


8.    It's undisputed from the record that the alleged incident took place at


CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                  4 of 7
the house of the informant and it appears that the deceased was standing

outside the house when the informant was abused and threatened by the

present Petitioners. The deceased came to know about the abuses hurled and

threats issued to the informant and in anger he left the spot of incident on a

motorcycle. Thereafter, as the search conducted was unsuccessful, a missing

complaint was filed on 24/03/2023. On 26/03/2023, the body of the

deceased-son of information was found in the river at Kayagaon Bridge. Thus,

the above indicates no abuses were hurled and no threats were issued to the

deceased by the present Petitioners for them to aid or instigate the

commission of suicide of the deceased. Furthermore there is no evidence to

show that the petitioners were aware of the mental state of Son of

Informant/Respondent No.2 and in spite of the same continues to abuse

informant. There is nothing on record to show any proximity or Live Link in

the threats issued to the information and deceased-son of informant

committing suicide, so also there is nothing on record to indicate presence of

mens rea on part of present Petitioners to abet the commission of suicide by

the Deceased.


9.    It might be the situation that deceased watching his father i.e.

informant being abused felt exasperated and humiliated and he being in state

of profound mortification at that point of time committed suicide. As such,


CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                  5 of 7
offence as alleged cannot be attributable to the present Petitioners for want of

specific allegation of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, coupled with a

proximate/live link between the act of the accused and the commission of

suicide.


10.   At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment tendered by

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra)

wherein it's held that words uttered in rage or state of emotions without

thinking of consequences, in absence of mens rea, can't be deemed as act of

instigation for commission of suicide. In the case in hand, abuses and threats

were issued to informant and there is no evidence on record indicating

instigation of part of present Petitioners in abetting or instigating the act of

commission of suicide by Deceased.


11.   In so far as statements of witnesses are concerned, the same indicates

allegations of persistent abuses made and threats being hurled by present

Petitioners to the informant. Further perusal shows the deceased was known

to the present Petitioners which indicates that there is subsequent

improvement in the statements. In the view of above, the veracity of

statements of these witnesses cannot be considered as it will be subject matter

to be substantiated before Trial court and the same does not inspire

confidence in absence of corroboration.

CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                   6 of 7
12.      From Bare perusal of investigation papers, it's evident that there is no

proximate link between the Petitioners abusing and issuing threats to the

information and the act of commission of suicide by the deceased-son of the

informant. The Petitioners have not committed any direct or indirect act in

order to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased nor

there is any cogent material on record. The above indicates that the elements

of offence as alleged against Present Petitioners are not made out. Prima facie

even if the case of prosecution is accepted as its, no offence under section 306

of IPC is made out against present Petitioners.


13.      Hence, in the view of the above discussion, application stands Allowed

in terms of prayer clause “B” and “B-A”.



                                                       ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




CRIM.WP.No.740/2023.odt                     7 of 7