Allowed

Rajendra Rameshrao Dagwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Samudrapur

Bombay HC12 Feb 2026APL/1124/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of an FIR for abetment of suicide arising from a family property dispute; court held no positive act or mens rea of instigation was shown in the FIR, suicide note, or allegations, so Section 306 IPC ingredients were absent. The application was allowed and the FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.287/2024 and Charge-sheet No.75/2024 quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant.

Rajendra Rameshrao Dagwar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:2732-DB

¶2

1 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1124 OF 2025

¶5

Rajendra s/o Late Rameshrao Dagwar, Aged 46 Yrs., Occ: Private, R/o In front of Deepali Complex, Samudrapur, Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha. APPLICANT Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.

¶6

Yogesh s/o Subhash Savji (Kurwale), Aged 24 Yrs., Occ: Private Service, R/o Plot No.10, Joshi Wadi, Kukde Layout, Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS

¶7

- - - - Mr. D.R. Rupnarayan, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J. DATED : 12^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶13

ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

¶14

Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the Non-applicant/No.1/State.

¶15

The present Application is preferred by the Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.287/2024 registered with Police Station Samudrapur, District Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Charge-sheet No.75/2024.

¶16

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Application are as under:

¶17

4(i). The Non-applicant No.2 Yogesh s/o Subhash Savji has lodged the report at the Police Station alleging therein that his mother is living with her matrimonial aunt Sonali Khare at Butibori Nagpur for 5 months prior to the said incident. On 15.03.2024, they filed report stating therein that, there is a

¶18

3 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶19

family dispute between the Applicant and the Non-applicant No.2/Complainant. The Applicant being his matrimonial uncle, there is dispute between the mother of the Complainant and the Applicant in relation to the ancestral property of his mother. The Applicant has threatened the mother of the Complainant that whatever happens, he will not give any part of this property to her, even if she dies, and therefore, being instigated by the same she has committed suicide by jumping into the well. On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime against the present Applicant.

¶20

4(ii). After registration of the crime the investigation started rotating. During investigation the suicide note of the deceased was seized by the Investigating agency and various statements of witnesses were also recorded and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the present Applicant.

¶21

There is no dispute as to the fact that there is a relationship between the deceased and the present Applicant. Present Applicant is the brother of the deceased. There is no dispute that, there is a rift between the brother and sister on

¶22

4 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶23

account of share in the ancestral property. As per the allegation, the present Applicant denied her share, and therefore, she got instigated and she committed suicide by jumping into the well.

¶24

Her suicide note also discloses that her husband was also implicated in the false case, and therefore, she got frustrated. Moreover, she was having mental pressure and therefore she has committing suicide. Thus, the nature of the allegation is that due to the abetment at the hands of the present Applicant she has committed suicide.

¶25

Now question remains whether such type of instigation would be sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. As far as the allegations against the present Applicant are concerned, it is alleged that he has stated that even if she dies he will not give her any share and that is the abetment as per the prosecution.

¶26

Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

¶27

Sanhita, 2023) of IPC defines abetment of suicide, which reads thus:

¶28

“ 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

¶29

5 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶30

term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶31

Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session.”

¶32

8. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the Bharatiya

¶33

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads

¶34

thus:

¶35

“ 107. Abetment of a thing . A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

¶36

First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶37

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

¶38

Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶39

Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material 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.

¶40

Illustration

¶41

A, a public officer, is authorised 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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

6 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶44

9. Section 108 of IPC reads thus:

¶45

“ 108. Abettor .- A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

Illustrations

¶49

(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

¶50

(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.

¶51

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.

¶52

Illustrations

¶53

(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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

7 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶56

(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dweiling-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 fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence.

¶57

(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.

¶58

Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.

¶59

Illustration

¶60

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 instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.

¶61

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 the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

¶62

Illustration

¶63

A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C 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. C

¶64

8 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶65

has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.”

¶66

Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicide

¶67

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.

¶68

The said Sections 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 actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.

¶69

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.

¶70

9 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶71

It is well settled that in order to attract the offence

¶72

of 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.

¶73

In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr., SLP [Cri] Diary No. 39981/2022, decided on 30.01.2024 , relied by learned Counsel for the Applicants, 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 IPC and held, as under:

¶74

10 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶75

"8.2. 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.

¶76

8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. 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:

¶77

“20. 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 a reasonable certainty to incite 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."

¶78

8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238 , as under:

¶79

"43. 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 pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. 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.

¶80

11 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶81

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.

¶82

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 an 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."

¶83

8.5. 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:

¶84

"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.

¶85

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."

¶86

12 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶87

8.6. 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 appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

¶88

15. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State

¶89

of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 , the Hon’ble Apex Court extensively dealt with concept of ‘abetment’ in the context of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, the allegation against the accused/appellant therein was that he had abetted the commission of suicide of his sister's husband one Chander Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were matrimonial disputes between sister of the appellant/accused and her husband and in connection with the said disputes, the appellant had allegedly threatened and abused Chander Bhushan. Chander Bhushan committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by the prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place between the appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior. It was alleged that the appellant had used abusive language against said Chander Bhushan and had told him “to go and die”. The appellant, who had been chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of

¶90

13 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶91

the Indian Penal Code, filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was dismissed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:

¶92

“Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”

¶93

Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with

¶94

the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the

¶95

mind of the deceased and which draw him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetal impulse or ill-fated thoughts of the suicide, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a

¶96

14 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶97

result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶98

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383 referred in Prabhu Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police Anr., (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, in para No.20 has examined different meaning of ‘instigation’, which reads as, ‘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 a reasonable certainty to incite 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

¶99

15 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶100

of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be ‘instigation’.

¶101

Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and

¶102

108 of the Indian Penal Code, shows the requirement is a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in the absence of the same, the conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

¶103

Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the relationship between the present Applicant and the Complainant is admitted. As far as the abetment is concerned, it is well settled that, for attracting the offence of Section 306 of IPC, the positive act on the part of the present Applicant is required.

¶104

The suicide note is reproduced for further reference:

¶105

16 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶106

17 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶107

On examination of the instant case on the

¶108

touchstone of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and even considering the exhaustive suicide note written by the deceased victim, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are not made out. It nowhere reveals that the Applicant in any way provoke the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the present Applicant. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶109

O R D E R

¶110

i. Criminal Application is allowed .

¶111

ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 287/2024 registered with Police Station Samudrapur, District Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Charge-sheet No.75/2024, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present Applicant.

¶112

18 46.APL.1124-2025.JUDGMENT.odt

¶113

22 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of

¶114

accordingly.

¶115

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶116

S.D.Bhimte

¶117

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/02/2026 14:33:34

Rajendra Rameshrao Dagwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Samudrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Rameshrao Dagwar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Samudrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj S/O Sundarlal Dhurve vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Gadchiroli Tahsil and Dist Gadchiroli and Anr.

Dr. Mugdha W/O Rahul Pachakawade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ghatnaji Tah Ghatanji Dist Yavatmal

Rakesh Sudarshan Tiwari vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Gittikhadan Dist.Nagpur and Another

Firoz Khan Nyamat Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogesh Sunil Londhe vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ramdaspeth Tq. and Dist.Akola and Another

Abrar Ahmed Shaikh Mukhtar and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Risod, and Anr.