Bombay High Court
Dharmendrakumar Sadaramji Mehar And ... vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Amgaon ... on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4905-DB
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 85 OF 2023
1. Dharmendrakumar Sadaramji
Mehar, APPLICANTS
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation - Service
2. Priti Jitendrakumar Mehar,
Aged about 33 years,
Occupation Housewife,
Both applicants are r/o Thana
Tahsil- Amgaon, District Gondia
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Police Station Officer, Police Station NON-APPLICANTS
Amgaon, District Gondia
2. Mirabai Krushanrao Giripunje,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation Housewife, r/o
Vinoba Nagar, Tumsar, Tahsil
Tumsar, District Bhandara
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abdul Subhan,
Advocate for the applicants.
Mrs. Ritu Sharma APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.
Ms Mohini A. Sharma, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 17.03.2026
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application is preferred by applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime No.52/2022 registered at Police Station Amgaon District Gondia for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No.67/2022 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia.
4. Crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that deceased was her daughter. Her marriage was performed with applicant No.1 in the year 2021 i.e. 07.10.2021. This was her second marriage as well as second marriage of applicant No.1 also. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation at the house of present applicants. After marriage she was treated well for two months and thereafter 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 3 she was subjected for the harassment. On 26.01.2022 applicant No.1 has dropped her at her parental house and at that time deceased has disclosed to them that applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 are having illicit relations and due to that applicant No.1 is harassing her by physically as well as mentally. On 13.02.2021 applicant No.1 has taken her again for cohabitation. On 16.02.2022 she received the message that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. On basis of said report police have registered crime against present applicants. After registration of crime, investigation started rotating. Investigating Officer has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against present applicants.
5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicants who submitted that as far as the abetment is concerned, there is no positive or active participation of the present applicants to abet her as reflected from the entire investigation papers. He submitted that on demonstration of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that there was a dispute between husband and wife due to trivial reasons and therefore, deceased has committed 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 4 suicide. He invited my attention towards the various statements of the witnesses and submitted that the statements of the witnesses also disclose that as per the disclosure by the deceased dispute between husband and wife was on trivial reasons and due to which she has committed suicide. The statement of friend of deceased also shows that deceased was not happy as there was some differences between husband and wife. Thus, he submitted that even taking into consideration the entire investigation material no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicants. He also invited my attention towards the panchanama of the mobile phone of the sister of the deceased wherein she has recorded call of the deceased and even if it is taken into consideration it shows that she was having suspicion about the character of the present applicant No.1 and that was the reason for her to commit the suicide.
6. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pravin s/o Gyaniram Borkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2025 ALL MR (Cri.) 4343 and submitted that accused must be shown to have played an active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act to 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 5 facilitate the commission of suicide which is absent in the present case. In view of that application deserves to be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that statements of the witnesses as well as mobile call recording of the deceased and sister of the deceased show that there was an abetment at the hands of the present applicants and therefore, deceased has committed suicide. In view of that application deserves to be rejected.
8. Before entering into merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the considerations as far as the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned.
Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which reads thus:
306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 6 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of offence.- The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Sessions.
9. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.-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.
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 7 Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful mis represention, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procure, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:-
108. Abettor.-
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 8 committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1.- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Illustrations 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 9
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B. in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 10 fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment. provided for that offence.
(d) A. intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.
Illustration A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 11 instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison: Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 12
10. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
11. The said Section penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
12. A question arises as to when is a person said to have instigated another. The word "instigate" means to goad or urge forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act" which the person otherwise would not have done.
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 13
13. It is well settled that in order to establish to abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.
14. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police and anr, [2025 ALL SCR (Cri) 1560] relied by learned counsel for the applicant, by referring the various earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the physical relationship over a considerable period of time was out of mutual love between the appellant and the deceased and not based on the promise of marriage. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023 and explained ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and held, as under:
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 14 "Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC.
This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide."
15. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein " Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet an reasonable certainty to incite 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 15 the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
16. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238. as under:
" This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 16 pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
18. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/ she committed suicide."
48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 17
19. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 106 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:
20. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 106 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:
" 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 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 18 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.
21. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
22. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the applicant No.1 and her subsequent death by hanging herself. In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 19 the provisions what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or aided to the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect incitement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
23. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the allegation against the present applicants is that there were differences between the husband and wife as well as there used to be quarrel between deceased and applicant No.2 for trivial reasons on account of doing household work. As far as nature of the relationship between the deceased and present applicants is concerned, except the statements of the relatives of the deceased there is no other material collected during the investigation. Even accepting the statement of the friend of the deceased which also shows that there were differences on account of the trivial reasons and therefore, deceased has committed suicide. Even accepting the communication between the deceased and her sister it also shows that there was difference between husband 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 20 and wife on account of having suspicion by the deceased against her husband regarding the illicit relations between applicant No.1 and applicant No.2. Admittedly there is no single instance narrated by the witnesses to show that due to specific instances there was reason for the deceased to believe that there was illicit relations between her husband and applicant No.2. No single instance is narrated by the witnesses to show that due to the specific instances there was no option before the deceased to commit suicide.
24. In the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/1266/2024 wherein while dealing with the provisions under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code extensively it is held that the very first clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation' to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment In paragraph No. 25 it is observed that even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 21 quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While dealing with the situation on the basis of the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide.
25. In another case in Monika Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. referred in the relied judgement by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants in the case of Pravin Borkar vs the State of Maharashtra and another i.e. Monika Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein also the Division Bench of this Court by applying the various decisions held that on applying the parameters and while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 22 wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that there were a differences between applicant No.1 and deceased on account of trivial reasons. There were differences as the deceased was having suspicion regarding the relationship between the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2. No specific instances have been narrated to have such willing by the deceased that there was illicit relations between them. On examination of instant case on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the entire material collected during the investigation even the communication which is recorded in the mobile phone of the sister of the deceased is not sufficient to attract the offence 48 apl 85.23.odt..odt 23 of abetment against the present applicants. In view of that the application deserves to be allowed.
27. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with crime No.52/2022 registered at Police Station Amgaon District Gondia for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings arising out of the same bearing Sessions Case No.67/2022 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia is quashed and set aside to the extent of applicants.
28. The criminal application stands disposed of in the above said terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) manisha Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/03/2026 12:25:54