Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AS:18273
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 440 OF 2009
...Applicants /
Accused no. 1 to 3
1. Jaisukhlal Purshottam Vaghani
2. Ganesh Shivaji Kamble
3. Ijaj Aziz Punjani
Versus
The State of Maharashtra at the instance of ...Respondent
Senior P.I. M.H.B. Police Station, Mumbai
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN
*
Ms. Keral Mehta (Appointed through Legal Aid) for the Applicants.
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Respondent/State.
PSI – Usha Khose, MHB Colony Police Station.
*
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.04.18
16:55:59 +0530
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
th
DATE : 17 APRIL, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Revision Applicants and learned
APP for the State. Perused the record.
2. The present revision application is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for
short) challenging the Oral Order dated 21.05.2009 passed below Ex-3
in connection with Sessions Case No. 36 of 2009 by Assistant Sessions
Judge, Sessions Court Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Mumbai for offence
punishable under section 306, 384 and 506 read with Section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). By the said impugned
order, the application filed by the Revision Applicants for discharge
under Section 227 of CrPC has been rejected.
3. According to the FIR filed by complainant mother (Sunita
Sneha Chavan 1
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
Jitendra Shah), deceased Sagar Jitendra Shah was her son, who was
engaged in business of delivery using his tempo. He was working for
last 4 years in J.P. Electronics for delivery of electronics items purchased
from said shop owned by the Applicant No.1. That he used to go for
delivery on receipt of a call from the said shop. About 10 days before
the suicide, the deceased had started business of selling trolleys to the
customers, who have purchased washing machine from the said shop.
That the deceased had asked the Applicant No.1 through one Mr. Raju
Bhai, however, the Applicant No.1 had not responded. That on
17.07.2008 at noon-time, the deceased came crying at home and on
being asked, informed her, that Applicant No.1 has demanded
Rs.5,000/- from the deceased because he was doing business of
supplying trolleys directly to the customers from outside the shop. That
Applicant No.1 had asked for immediate payment or cheque and for
which, he had come home. That he collected cheque and went. That he
did not return home that night till 9.30 p.m. and was searched. When
he returned home at 10.30 p.m., he was seen under pressure. That he
informed that Applicant No.1 has forcibly got written from deceased
that he has sold trolley to a customer and also taken forcible signature
on cheque. That Applicant No.1 has told that he has good contacts with
police and threatened him to report to the police. When this was
narrated, sister of deceased – Ms. Hetal was there. That mother and
sister consoled him and mother told him to meet Applicant No.1 the
next day with sister Hetal and one more relative and assured to find a
way out. That next day on 18.07.2008, the deceased left for work at
9.30 a.m. and came back at 1.00 p.m. and told that Applicant No.1 is
continuously saying that he will tell police and will not permit the
tempo to run and will make him to sell the tempo and if tempo is sold,
how will they survive. At that time, the complainant consoled him and
Sneha Chavan 2
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
decided to meet Applicant No.1. Thereafter, the deceased went without
eating and kept his mobile phone at home saying that it was discharged.
At 3.30 p.m., daughter Hetal called on mobile and told that Applicant
No.1 has informed her that there is no need to give money and cheque
is also not deposited in the bank, however he asked to inform the
deceased that he should return the money to the customer. Therefore,
the plan to meet Applicant No.1 was called off. That evening at 6.30
p.m. she found a suicide note kept by the deceased in a cupboard in
which the Applicants were named. That at 7.30 p.m., she received a
call from hospital and came to know about the death. That the salesmen
in the shop- Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 had made false complaint with
Applicant No.1 and deceased could not bear all these circumstances,
resulting in his suicide. Therefore, it is alleged that due to harassment
by the Applicants, the deceased committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted as under. That if
the FIR as well as various statements recorded by the police during
investigation are perused, necessary ingredients of abetment of suicide,
extortion and criminal intimidation are not at all made out. That there
is no motive or mens rea attributable to the Applicants and the aspect
of intention is completely absent. That even taking the case pleaded in
the FIR or in the statements at their face value, a situation leading to
deceased left with no option but to commit suicide at the instance of the
Applicants, is not at all seen. That no proximate reason can be made
out. That in such circumstances it will be futile to let the trial proceed
and therefore, this is a fit case to discharge the Applicants. She relied
on following judgments in support of her case.
(i) Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Ors. vs. State of
Gujarat [(2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 116]
Sneha Chavan 3
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
(ii) Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of M.P. [(1994 SCC
OnLine MP 80]
(iii) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v/s. State of Gujarat
and Anr [SLP (Cri.) No(s). 4644/2025]
(iv) Nishit Patel v/s. State of Maharashtra, through Khar Police
station & Anr [2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2397]
5. She submits that in Vedprakash Tarachand (supra), in similar
circumstances and while considering the alleged offence of abetment to
suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the revision application has been
entertained and allowed at the stage of framing of charges.
6. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State
submitted that from the statements recorded by the police, proximate
instigation is made out and this is a case where Applicants are named in
a suicide note and therefore there is no reason to interfere in the order
by which discharge is refused. Statement of Rajesh Inderkumar Anand,
is pointed out by learned APP to contend that he knew the deceased
and his family since long time and deceased had met him on the day of
the suicide who had narrated about cheque being taken by Applicant
No.1. This person has identified handwriting of the deceased. She
submitted that considering the statements recorded, the Applicants
must face trial.
7. I have considered rival submission and caselaw. Perused the
impugned order and various statements recorded during the
investigation.
8. Perusal of the FIR by mother of deceased (Sunita Jitendra
Shah) indicates that it is lodged on 23.07.2008 whereas according to
the FIR, the suicide had taken place on 18.07.2008. There is apparently
Sneha Chavan 4
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR. The mother of the deceased has
stated in the FIR that she found the suicide note at about 06.30 pm on
18.07.2008 and she came to know about the death when a call was
received from the hospital at 07.30 pm. It means suicide note is found
before death was reported.
9. Sister of the deceased (Hetal Jitendra Shah) has stated that on
18.07.2008, she went to her work in the morning at 08.30 a.m. and on
the way, called Applicant No.1 informing that she is the sister of
deceased and she wants to speak with Applicant No. 1 and asked for
time. She has stated that she requested Applicant No. 1 not to deposit
the cheque taken from the deceased. She has stated that she was
continuously calling Applicant No.1 and at 12.30 p.m., the Applicant
No.1 asked her not to call again and again. She has stated that the
deceased was calling her to enquire about response of Applicant No. 1.
She has stated that since Applicant No. 1 was not taking her call, she
messaged him in english language stating that ‘whatever is the loss
caused to Applicant No. 1, the deceased and his sister is ready to
compensate, but they need to talk’. She has stated that at 03.30 p.m.
Applicant No. 1 called her and told that he does not want money and he
has also not deposited the cheque taken from deceased, but asked her
to tell the deceased to return the money taken from the customer. She
has also stated that she felt relieved after talking to Applicant No. 1.
10. A relative of the deceased (Praanlal Kibabhai Mehta) has also
given statement, who has stated that on 18.07.2008 at about 02.30 to
02.45 p.m. he received a call from the deceased who said that his
employer is harassing him and therefore he has no option but to commit
suicide. He has further stated that when he tried to dissuade the
deceased from taking an extreme step, the deceased disconnected the
Sneha Chavan 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
phone while crying. It is important to note that the mother of the
deceased in her FIR has only stated that deceased left the mobile phone
at home because it was discharged. She has not stated anything about
making a call to a relative. He has further stated that At 03.30 p.m. on
the said day, sister of deceased called him and said that Applicant No. 1
informed her that he does not want money and he is not depositing the
cheque taken from deceased and has asked the deceased to return the
money to the customer and therefore there is no need to go and meet
Applicant No. 1.
11. Nikita Sharad Pingle, who is a worker with Applicant No. 1,
has stated that on the earlier day 17.07.2008, deceased had met
Applicant No. 1 and the cheque of Rs.5,000/- was given asking for loan.
It is stated that Applicant No. 1 denied giving loan and told deceased to
return the money taken from customers and apologise to them;
however deceased left the cheque on the table as ‘a security’ and left
with a request not to stop his tempo.
12. Reshma Sharad Pingle, who is another worker with Applicant
No. 1, has stated that on the earlier day 17.07.2008, when deceased
had come to meet Applicant No. 1, deceased was not seen under any
pressure.
13. The customer of the said shop Mr. Jagannath Pandurang
Sunkale has stated that after he purchased a washing machine from said
shop, he received a phone call by one Mr. Vishal offering to sell trolley
for less than market price and on agreeing, a person had come to
deliver that trolley who took Rs.500 and told his name as Sagar. This
person has stated that though next day he visited the shop and enquired
about who gave his mobile number, he had no complaint about the
receipt of trolley.
Sneha Chavan 6
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
14. Mr. Dharmesh Manubhai Mistry working in the said shop has
stated that deceased had good relation with the persons working in the
office and godown. However, he has further stated that Applicant No.1
owner of said shop was a kind of person who would not get angry or
annoyed in case of any mistake by the staff.
15. Mr. Pankaj Lallan Sharma working in the said shop has stated
that deceased was a quiet person with straight forward nature having
friendly relation with him.
16. On perusal of various statements, including above, the picture
that emerges is that the deceased was working as a tempo driver for
delivering material from the shop of Applicant No. 1, but in addition, he
was selling trolleys for washing machines directly to the customers and
taking money for the same. This had led to a rift/ friction between
Applicant No. 1 (shop owner) and the deceased (delivery-tempo owner)
as some customer had complained. Deceased was confronted and
threatened with police action and money was demanded for which
cheque was given. Prosecution says that this confrontation as well as
issuance/taking of cheque has led to the deceased committing suicide.
17. At this stage, it is necessary to consider section 107 and 306 of
IPC. In Jayedeepsinh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment, has held that for a person to be charged under section 306,
the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of
suicide and this involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions
outlined in Section 107 of IPC. It is observed that these conditions
include the accused instigating and encouraging the individual to
commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was
carried out or engaging in conduct that directly led to the person taking
his or her own life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clarified that
Sneha Chavan 7
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
for conviction under Section 306 of IPC, it is well established that
presence of clear mens rea / intention to abet is essential and mere
harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of
abetting suicide. An active or direct action by the accused leading to
deceased taking his or her own life is necessary and mens rea cannot
simply be presumed or inferred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the judgment of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
[(2010) 12 SCC 190] and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2001) 9 SCC 618] in which it is observed that abetment involves
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing a thing and instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do “an act”.
18. Keeping in mind the above well established legal principles,
when the case made out in the FIR as well as supporting statements is
seen, I do not find any contribution of the Applicants, much less any
instigation or encouragement to commit suicide or any conspiracy to
ensure that the act was carried out. The fact that the sister of the
deceased has stated that Applicant No. 1 himself informed her on the
telephone that he does not want the money and he is not going to
deposit the cheque taken from the deceased and asked her to inform the
deceased to return the money taken from customers and apologise,
itself indicates that there was no such contribution, much less any
instigation or encouragement at the hands of Applicant No. 1. Material
on the record does not indicate any urge or provocation, incitement or
encouragement to the act of suicide. Also, from various statements on
record, no case of extortion or criminal intimidation is made out against
any of the accused.
19. It is seen that the deceased went to work on the date of
Sneha Chavan 8
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
suicide in the morning and came back and informed the complainant
mother that he has been threatened and he would be implicated in a
false case by the Applicant No. 1. It is seen that at that time, it was
decided between the complainant and deceased that they would meet
the Applicant No. 1. However at 03.30 p.m. the sister of deceased
received a call from Applicant No. 1, where he told that there was no
need for deceased to give him any money and he is not going to deposit
the cheque for encashment. However, deceased should return the
money and apologise to the customer. For this reason, the proposed
meeting with the Applicant no. 1 was called off. In such circumstances,
the case lacks the necessary ingredient of proximate reason between the
actual act of suicide and the alleged reasons and acts therefor.
20. In Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has considered the case under Section 306 of IPC where
the deceased who had committed suicide, had borrowed considerable
amount of money from the accused persons. In the said case, there was
material in the form of call records where the accused had called the
deceased many times in last 6 months. Even in such circumstances,
when there was material to indicate that the accused were insisting on
repayment with the deceased, the Court has found that there was no
material to indicate actual abetment of suicide. The present case stands
on a far better footing, because the only reason stated to connect the
Applicants with the act of suicide is complaint made to Applicant No. 1
and confrontation arising out of the sale of trolley by deceased directly
to customers and demand of Rs.5,000/-.
21. Apart from stating that the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (who were
working as salesmen in the shop of Applicant No. 1) had made
complaint about deceased with Applicant No. 1, there is no other role
Sneha Chavan 9
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::
4-REVN-440-2009 (CR) @1.doc
attributed to Applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, in my view, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the Applicants and the application for discharge should have
been allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated above,
the impugned order requires interference as proceeding with Trial with
such materials would be a futility.
23. Revision application is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order dated 21.05.2009 passed below Ex-3 is set aside. The Applicants
are discharged from the alleged offences under section 306, 384 and
506 read with Section 114 of IPC in connection with C.R.No. 196 of
2008 in MHB Colony Police Station, Mumbai.
24. The assistance rendered by learned counsel Ms. Mehta
appointed by the Court to espouse the cause of Applicants, is
appreciated. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High
Court, Mumbai is directed to pay her honorarium as per Rules.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 10
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 17:19:59 :::