Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1509 (BOM)

Pawan Rajkumar Drolia v. State of Maharashtra

2025-12-10

MANISH PITALE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.515 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017, registered at Khar Police Station as well as Sessions Case No.365 of 2018, pending before the Sessions Court at Greater Mumbai. 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution for offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), i.e. for abetment of suicide as also Sections 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment and order dated 18.06.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ.), in Criminal Writ Petition No.3388 of 2024 (Nishit Patel vs. State of Maharashtra and another), whereby the said petition wasallowed, which was filed by a co-accused person Nishit Patel. It is contended that the allegations made against the said co-accused person, on the basis of the very same material, could be said to be of a higher degree as compared to the allegations made against the petitioner herein. It is submitted that when the FIR has been quashed as against the said co-accused person, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same relief. 5. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that Writ Petition No.3559 of 2019 filed by co-accused Lilaram Sunderlal Sindhi was also allowed and the FIR was quashed as against the said co-accused person. It was submitted that in the statement of the first informant, leading to registration of FIR, the allegation against the petitioner herein, was similar to the allegation levelled against the said co-accused and therefore, this is an additional ground for the present petition to be allowed. 6. The learned APP could not dispute the fact that the prayers of the co-accused Nishit Patel, Rakesh Trivedi and Lilaram Sunderlal Sindhi and also another accused, have been already allowed by this Court and the FIR has been quashed as against them. 7. Since the principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the role attributed to the petitioner herein is, at worst, similar to the role attributed to the said co-accused persons, reliefs in the present case must also follow. 8. 7. Since the principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the role attributed to the petitioner herein is, at worst, similar to the role attributed to the said co-accused persons, reliefs in the present case must also follow. 8. In that light, it would be appropriate to refer to the findings rendered by this Court in the cases of the co-accused Nishit Patel and Lilaram Sunderlal Sindhi. 9. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of co-accused Nishit Patel (Criminal Writ Petition No.3388 of 2024), while allowing the petition, observed as follows: “8. Navroz Tejani committed suicide on 24 th July 2017. It appears that the statement of the deceased’s son- Arshad was recorded on the very same day i.e. 24 th July 2017, when the deceased committed suicide. At that time of recording of the statement, no suspicion was disclosed by the deceased’s son-Arshad on anyone to the police. It appears that the deceased's family changed their residence on 1 st September 2017, from Kishan Abode, 11 th Floor, 14 th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai to 705, B-Wing, Widz End, St. Peter's Church, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai, post the deceased’s suicide. It also appears that on 10 th December 2017, the deceased’s wife found a suicide note written by her husband, whilst unpacking at their new residence in Bandra (West) i.e. after more than 4 months of the incident. On reading the suicide note, the respondent No.2- Nazeem Navroz Tejani (wife of the deceased) lodged an FIR on 22 nd December 2017, as against the persons mentioned in the suicide note by the deceased. The said FIR was registered vide C.R. No.515 of 2017, with the Khar Police Station, Mumbai, as against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 34 of the IPC. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the prosecution places reliance on the suicide note written by the deceased and the statement of Ranchod Parmar. Post the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and charge- sheet was filed against the persons named in the suicide note, including the petitioner. We have perused the documets/evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. the suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Parmar. Post the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and charge- sheet was filed against the persons named in the suicide note, including the petitioner. We have perused the documets/evidence relied upon by the prosecution i.e. the suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Parmar. From a perusal of the suicide note, it appears that the deceased started writing the suicide note on 20 th July 2017 which continued till 23 rd July 2017. In the said suicide note, the deceased had made allegations against 9 persons, including the petitioner. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner in the suicide note, reads thus:- ‘20/7/17 The main culprit for my suicide is- P. K. Gupta -- cheater No. 1, -- Rakesh Ravi Chakara, ] v.v. expert Sunil Thadani ] in extortion) Pawan Darolia Propwiz India Liliram All this above people took away lots of money from me and cheated me and also threatened me. If I do not pay them. Any how for the life of my son and me I settled with them. They have cheated many other people. One No one from my family is responsible for the step I am taking. All my family member Pl. forgive me. One Mr. Jani at Solapur also did not co.operate. Shanawaz also did not return the money which I was suppose to give to so many people in bandra. Nishit Patel was also very harsh in collecting his interest money, did not cooperate at all. All my staff at tejani stores have worked very sincerely for me but with G.S.T. now and building redevelopment it wasdifficult for them to do the business. I was not able to take the pressure though I had some properiety decession was not taken by me. V. V. Sorry to end my life this way. sign 23/7/17’ 9. Apart from the aforesaid, the prosecution relies on the statement of Ranchod Parmar, which was recorded on 28 th January 2018. The said statement is on page 348 of the petition. V. V. Sorry to end my life this way. sign 23/7/17’ 9. Apart from the aforesaid, the prosecution relies on the statement of Ranchod Parmar, which was recorded on 28 th January 2018. The said statement is on page 348 of the petition. In the said statement, Ranchod Parmar, has disclosed, as under:- (''Similarly, my boss had borrowed a huge sum of money on interest from Nishit Patel, however, every time Patel visited the store, my boss repeatedly requested him to reduce the interest rate, still he did not reduce the interest rate…)” (“...P. K. Gupta, Rakesh Trivedi, Sunil Thadani, Ravi Chakara, Shanawaz Karmali, Nishit Patel and Manohar Jani mentally tortured my boss, time and again for money….)”] Apart from the said evidence relied upon by the prosecution, no other material was pointed out by the learned APP and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.” 10. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court applied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, including State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]; Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 2025 SC 568 ); Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438]; Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835); Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091); Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana [ (2024) 3 SCC 573 ]; Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana [ (2019) 17 SCC 301 ]; and Ramrao S/o Govindrao Dhakane vs The State of Maharashtra and another (a judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court decided on 29.09.2024 in Criminal Application No.3086 of 2023). These judgments were relied upon in the context of the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and the definition of abetment in Section 107 thereof. 11. After exhaustively discussing the position of law concerning the said provisions and applying the same to the allegations leveled against the co-accused Nishit Patel, the Division Bench of this Court came to categorical conclusions as follows : “21. Thus, it is clear from the judgements of the Apex Court and this Court that the ingredients of Section 107 are sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC. Thus, it is clear from the judgements of the Apex Court and this Court that the ingredients of Section 107 are sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC. Courts have consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. 22. In the present case, taking the FIR and the contents of the suicide note as well as the statement of Ranchod Parmar, as it stands, it is not possible from any angle to conclude that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by him or that the petitioner used abusive language or intimidated him. 23. We also do not find any close proximity between the date of suicide note, which was allegedly written from 20 th July 2017 till 23 rd July 2017. Infact, the statement of Ranchod Parmar, does not reveal when the petitioner had come to the shop and demanded money. Nor, does the suicide note reveal any proximity between the petitioner’s act and the deceased committing suicide. The same is completely amiss. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can the act of the petitioner be said to constitute an act of instigation towards the deceased compelling him to commit suicide. 24. Thus, keeping in mind the provisions of the IPC, the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court and taking the case as it stands, we are of the opinion that, no offence either under Sections 306 or 506(2) of the IPC, is disclosed qua the petitioner. Thus, the petition ought to succeed. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER i) The petition is allowed; ii) The FIR bearing C.R. No.515 of 2017, registered with the Khar Police Station, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside and consequently the charge-sheet filed qua the petitioner, is also quashed and set aside.” 12. There is no dispute about the fact that the very same material has been relied upon by the prosecution as against the petitioner also. The suicide note, which the deceased left behind, is stated to have been recovered by his wife about 4 months after the date of the incident and after the family had shifted to another place. There is no dispute about the fact that the very same material has been relied upon by the prosecution as against the petitioner also. The suicide note, which the deceased left behind, is stated to have been recovered by his wife about 4 months after the date of the incident and after the family had shifted to another place. The suicide note refers to the name of the petitioner, but simply states that the petitioner and some others mentioned therein had cheated the victim in the context of loan amounts. In fact, the suicide note makes an allegation of a higher degree against co-accused Nishit Patel, to the effect that he was very harsh in collecting his interest money and that he did not co-operate at all with the victim. 13. Despite such allegation of a higher degree against the co- accused Nishit Patel, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by applying the position of law concerning abetment of suicide, found it fit to quash the FIR and charge-sheet as against the said co-accused Nishit Patel. 14. The learned APP referred to the specific allegation against the petitioner herein in the statement of the first informant that he had threatened the deceased of dire consequences, including causing physical injury and shutting down the shop of the deceased, if the amounts were not returned. Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, distinction was sought to be made on the basis of such threats described by the first informant. 15. We find that although there is indeed reference to such threats given allegedly by the petitioner to the deceased, there is no timeline thereto, although in such cases concerning offence under Section 306 of the IPC, it has to be at least prima facie demonstrated that the act on the part of the accused was soon before the act of the deceased committing suicide. We find that the statement of the first informant does not indicate any such act. 16. Apart from this, in the case of co-accused Lilaram Sundarlal Sindhi, against whom identical allegation was made by the first informant, a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing his writ petition bearing No.3559 of 2019 by order dated 13.06.2023, observed as follows: “9. From the narrations in the FIR and other material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was financially indebted to number of persons. From the narrations in the FIR and other material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was financially indebted to number of persons. Deceased had also taken hand-loan from the Petitioner with the assurance to repay and such assurance appears to be not honoured in spite of there being repeated demands and requests from the Petitioner. Demanding amount from the person like deceased who had admittedly taken hand-loan cannot be termed as an offence. However, what is objected is, mode and manner of demanding such amount. Admittedly, suicide note has not named the Petitioner as person who has caused substantial mental torture to the deceased in the matter of repayment of the hand-loan, as specifically mentioned in the suicide note. In the aforesaid backdrop, it cannot be said that the act of the Petitioner of asking the deceased to repay his own amount which is admittedly due has formed a situation which has driven the deceased to commit suicide and the Petitioner has abetted such suicide. Rather the prosecution has unable to demonstrate that suicide committed by the deceased was a fact known to the Petitioner and cause of such suicide was the demand made by the Petitioner for repayment of the hand-loan taken by the deceased. 10. As such, satisfaction of necessary ingredients for inferring offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be noticed from the material collected during investigation.” 17. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner herein is clearly entitled to relief on the ground of parity. Even if the contents of the FIR and the material on record, are to be accepted as it is, we do not find that even prima facie case of offences under Sections 306 and 406 of the IPC, are made out. Hence, we are inclined to allow this petition. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and consequently, FIR No.515 of 2017 registered at Khar Police Station, Mumbai and the chargesheet filed therein, as also Sessions Case No.365 of 2018, pending before the Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, are quashed as against the present petitioner. 19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.