ORDER : 1. Present applications have been filed for quashing the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.196/2023 i.e. after committal Sessions Case No.24/2023 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.504/2022 dated 29.10.2022 registered with Police Station, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal instructed by learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal for applicant in Criminal Application No.2722 of 2024, learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Kolhare for applicant in Criminal Application No.2260 of 2024 and learned APP Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar for respondent No.1 as well as learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Hon for respondent No.2 in both applications. 3. The learned Senior Counsel instructed by learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal in Criminal Application No.2722 of 2024 has submitted that even if we take the entire charge sheet including First Information Report as it is, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. First Information Report is lodged by widow of deceased. Deceased Tushar Bhaurao Deore (Patil) was employed with Sarbete School run by Gramvikas Shikshan Sanstha, Mudi. He was appointed on compassionate basis after the orders from this Court in 2013. Applicant Ramesh Vinayak Patil is one of the Directors and applicant Dipak Chandan Patil is the Teacher in the said institution and school respectively. Unfortunately Tushar committed suicide on 11.10.2022 by jumping in front of a railway. The prosecution has come with a case that he has left suicide note of which photograph was found in the mobile of deceased. The original is stated to be then found in the house. 4. Learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Advocate appearing for Dipak Chandan Patil have taken us through First Information Report as well as the entire charge sheet and they submit that as per contentions in First Information Report, Tushar was transferred within institution on 01.06.2016. It is the say that permanent Directors, Secretary, the other Directors were not allowing Tushar to resume duties and they were demanding amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from him. He was under pressure and tension because of the said demand. It is the say that permanent Directors, Secretary, the other Directors were not allowing Tushar to resume duties and they were demanding amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from him. He was under pressure and tension because of the said demand. In fact, he had taken loan from the Patsanstha under the pressure from accused persons and had given it to them in presence of Tushar’s nephew Darshan Ganesh Patil. Tushar had become financially weak and, therefore, was unable to fulfil the further demand i.e. remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Tushar was on leave in August and September, 2022, but thereafter whenever he had gone, he was not allowed to resume his duties. Thereafter, the meeting was arranged, which was then attended by Ramesh Patil, Secretary Sunil Patil, In-charge Chairman Panjabrao Patil, Director Jayant Patil, Kamalakar Patil, Dipak Chandan Patil, employee Dinesh Patil, wherein it was demanded that he should give the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and on that day there was altercation between Tushar and Directors. Since then Tushar was under mental tension and, therefore, he committed suicide. In order to support these contentions the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and collected certain documents from the financial institution. Supplementary statement of informant has also been recorded, however, in her supplementary statement she states that name of Sunil Patil is not mentioned in the suicide note and she has no complaint in respect of In-charge Chairman Punjabrao Patil, Dr. Sharad Shinde and Anil Patil. Due to her mental condition she had wrongly stated their names and she prayed for deletion of names of persons at Sr.Nos.2, 3, 10 and 11. Then there is statement of nephew, who says that his maternal uncle Tushar was under mental tension and he was present when the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given. Statement of witness Rajendra Shinde, who was serving as Headmaster is supporting prosecution and he says about the demand that was made of Rs.10,00,000/- and then Rs.2,00,000/- amount was given by Tushar. It is then tried to be contended on behalf of prosecution that since the appointment of Tushar the institution i.e. Directors were harassing him and he was required to approach this Court time and again. He was then transferred in 2016 and though he was approved, still the amount was demanded. Even he was not allowed to resume his duties. It is then tried to be contended on behalf of prosecution that since the appointment of Tushar the institution i.e. Directors were harassing him and he was required to approach this Court time and again. He was then transferred in 2016 and though he was approved, still the amount was demanded. Even he was not allowed to resume his duties. All these acts are stated to be acts of harassment amounting to abetment, however, it appears that when these acts were done, those were absolutely not soon before the suicide. The documents in respect of loan would show that it was obtained on 03.04.2021 from Jalgaon Zilla Sarkari Naukaranchi Sahakari Patpedhi. Even he had taken loan from the said Bank earlier also and, therefore, for the loan that was taken in 2021, it cannot be stated that there was a nexus when he committed suicide on 11.10.2022. 5. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision in M. Mohan vs. STATE represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [(2011) 3 SCC626], wherein it has been observed that - “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide conviction cannot be sustained.” It has been further observed that - “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 of the Indian Penal Code 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.” When the contents of First Information Report as well as the entire evidence that has been collected does not show that ingredients of offence are attracted, then it would be unjust to ask applicants to face the trial and, therefore, both of them have prayed for quashment of First Information Report and proceedings. 6 Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate Mr. 6 Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Hon for respondent No.2 have strongly opposed applications and submitted that now the charge sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is evidence against applicants, therefore, they should face the trial. The widow of the deceased was the best person to see the mental situation of deceased and she has stated that since many months prior to suicide deceased was under tension. A huge amount was demanded which was in fact beyond the capacity of a person serving as a Peon and in fact, when under the orders of this Court Tushar was taken on compassionate appointment, the Directors were deprived of the money which they could have got by recruiting a person on that post. The acts of harassment are in the nature of transfer, which was uncalled for, within the institution, which was done on 01.06.2016. Thereafter, there was an attempt to declare him as surplus and then when he was on leave because of such pressure for mitigating the illegal demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and in spite of giving amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was insisted. These are the active acts of harassment, which had led the commission of suicide by the deceased. The suicide note has been left and it can be proved at the time of trial. Even the statement of Headmaster supports the prosecution, when he says that he came to know about the demand by Directors from deceased. He has also stated that transfer was the outcome of decision to harass Tushar as he was not fulfilling the demand. Tushar had taken two months medical leave due to the harassment and at that time then this witness i.e. Rajendra Shinde – the Headmaster had given advice to Tushar that he should join the duty, but when he actually came to join the duty he was not allowed to. When a person has been put under such a situation wherein he was facing the financial constraints, he had wife and children to support, then at that point of time it appears that he felt that he has no option but to commit suicide and, therefore, the ingredients are made out. 7 Before turning to the facts, we would like to have a glance at the legal position. 7 Before turning to the facts, we would like to have a glance at the legal position. In M. Mohan (supra) the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were considered. Here, in this case, it appears that applicants are not disputing that Tushar has committed suicide, but still in M. Mohan (supra) it is held that ‘sui’ means self and ‘cide’ means killing, implying self- killing. Here, the suicide is in front of railway and the AD that was given to the Railway Station itself states that an unknown person had slept in front of the incoming train and thereby committed suicide. However, in order to attract Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code also i.e. ‘abetment of a thing’. 7.1 Note was taken in respect of decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ 2009 16 SCC 605 ], wherein the dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigation’ and ‘goading’ was taken note of. It was 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 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 its own facts and circumstances. 7.2 We are also taking note of the decisions in Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328], Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 Cri.L.J. 2796], Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another [ (2010) 8 SCC 628 ] and S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.)]. Further, recently, in Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288] (Criminal Appeal No.1388 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.03.2025). Again the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court have been considered including Chitresh Kumar (supra). Further, recently, in Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288] (Criminal Appeal No.1388 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.03.2025). Again the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court have been considered including Chitresh Kumar (supra). In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [ (2010) 1 SCC 707 ] similar view that of M. Mohan (supra) is taken, wherein it was held that - “In a case of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would not be sustainable.” 7.3 Similar view was also taken again in Rajesh vs. State of Haryana [ (2020) 15 SCC 359 ] and, therefore, on this basis it has been observed in Patel Babubhai Manohardas (supra) that - “Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.” 7.4 In respect of suicide note it has been observed in Shashi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased) [ AIR 1964 SC 529 ] that - “Expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.” Thereafter, it is opined, “finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of excitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide.” Of course, this case i.e. Patel Babubhai Manohardas (supra) was the appeal and, therefore, evidence was before Hon’ble Supreme Court; yet, we are presuming here that the suicide note that has been allegedly left is written by deceased and are considering whether the offence has been made out or not. 8. Taking into consideration the legal points involved, since most of the facts are reproduced earlier, we do not want to repeat the same, but would take that much only where it is needed. Careful perusal of First Information Report would show that Tushar was appointed on compassionate basis in 2013 and it is not in dispute that it was under the orders of this Court. Then, he worked in the school at Sarbete almost for three years and then it is stated that he was transferred within the institution i.e. the school run by the same institute at Shirud, Tq. Amalner in the capacity as Peon from 01.06.2016. Now, if we want to take the prosecution story that the harassment is since his appointment i.e. when his application for appointment on compassionate basis was earlier rejected and then allowed by this Court, it was in 2013, even the transfer is in 2016, that cannot be taken as the acts in the proximate duration of suicide dated 11.10.2022. There is no explanation or fact that is given in First Information Report that Tushar had felt aggrieved by transfer and at any point of time he had resisted or challenge his transfer from 2016 to 2022. In First Information Report directly the widow states about the date of suicide and as to what had happened on that day and gives the then the contents of suicide note to which we will come on later point of time, but then almost in the last paragraph she says that after her husband had joined the duties, amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was demanded for making him permanent. Now, in fact, it is on record that he was made permanent and then she says that in order to harass the threats were given that he would be removed from the job. Even the attempt was made to make him surplus, but actual documents show that proposal was given, but he was not so declared by the Education Officer. Then she says about taking up of the loan and giving it in presence of Tushar’s nephew by Tushar to the Directors. It was an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and it is stated that for rest of the amount there was again insistence. She has also stated that for about two months Tushar was on leave but has not stated as to whether anybody from present applicants had contacted him during that period. It is then stated that there was a meeting after he had joined the service wherein the remaining amount was demanded. But except the bare words there is nothing, because the nephew had not attended the same. Even the Headmaster Rajendra Shinde appears to have not attended the said meeting and whatever he has stated about it appears to be hearsay. Another point that is required to be noted is that even this witness i.e. Rajendra Shinde appears to be aggrieved with the Board of Directors and he says that as he was not made Headmaster, he was required to approach this Court and get his seniority fixed. He has also made a statement that the persons from the institution, that is, may be Directors and other higher officials create such a situation and demand the amount, then that employee is left with no option but to take the loan. This is all the hearsay because he has not stated that the amount was demanded to him and then he was forced to take the loan and then he has given the said amount to the Directors, especially the applicant Ramesh Patil. The other employees i.e. Teachers, whose statement have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have also stated on the same loan but none of them say that they have taken loan and fulfilled the demand. The other employees i.e. Teachers, whose statement have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have also stated on the same loan but none of them say that they have taken loan and fulfilled the demand. 9 Further, as regards the loan is concerned, whatever documents have been collected show that the said loan was taken in 2021 and it also states that prior to that also he had taken the loan amount from the same society. His application dated 03.04.2021 shows that earlier he had obtained loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and the amount which was outstanding was Rs.1,71,800/- and the amount that was demanded was Rs.1,71,800/-. That means, whatever amount was outstanding, he had demanded, but then there is also another document styled as ‘Kararnama’ executed on the same day states that he has obtained loan of Rs.2,42,000/-. Now, it has been tried to be demonstrated on behalf of respondent No.2 that the guarantors are from those persons who are now accused. Even if we take the fact as it is, the loan was taken on 03.04.2021 and the suicide is on 11.10.2022. Therefore, there is no proximity. It is also not stated on behalf of respondent No.2 that perusal of statement of nephew, in whose presence the amount was given, would show that the loan was taken from another financial institution and not the same in respect of which the documents are collected. In this connection, we would say that even the nephew has not stated exactly on which date that amount was handed over by his maternal uncle Tushar to those accused persons. It was necessary when proximity is required to be shown. Further, it is said that Tushar was on leave for about two months and thereafter he was not allowed to resume his duties. The Headmaster is halfheartedly supporting, because at another breath he says that he had asked deceased to join the duties, but then deceased told him that due to harassment he is unable to. If he was not allowed to join the duties, then the question will arise – whether it amounts to otherwise termination and then the deceased had option to challenge the same before the Court of law. If he was not allowed to join the duties, then the question will arise – whether it amounts to otherwise termination and then the deceased had option to challenge the same before the Court of law. There was no such circumstance or direct or indirect evidence as has been considered in Chitresh Kumar (supra) and the circumstances that Tushar had no option but to commit suicide. The long duration between the incidences cannot be considered as the circumstance of instigating because there is no proximity. 10 Perusal of suicide note (which we are taking as it is in the handwriting of deceased) would show that he is making allegations in respect of incidences since 2016. He speaks about said loan which we have already discussed and he is including four names also in his suicide note viz. Anandrao Sitaram Pa, Sou. Pratibha Anandrao Pa, Mukesh Anandrao Pa and Vasudeo Anandrao Pa. Here, ‘Pa’ appears to be ‘Patil’ and relationship is not disclosed, but in First Information Report he says that they had resisted the act of sale of land by deceased as well as deceased was given 03 R land less in the ancestral land. Therefore, he is including those persons also responsible for his suicide, but informant – widow has not included names of those four persons in First Information Report. Therefore, she has voluntarily deleted certain names from suicide note. In fact, it appears that two separate chits are there. One is very long one, in which names of other persons are also included without giving more details as to when those incidences regarding partition and sale of portion of his land had occurred. It might be a fact that he would have been put in constrained circumstances or he might be facing financial difficulties, but it cannot be stated that there was intention on anybody’s part that he should commit suicide. 11 Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects we are of the opinion that taking into consideration the material collected in the investigation, that is, contents of charge sheet and First Information Report do not attract the offence under Section 306 much less Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, these are the fit cases where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and others vs. Chh. Therefore, these are the fit cases where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and others vs. Chh. Bhajan Lal and others [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ]. Hence, following order. ORDER i) Both Criminal Applications stand allowed. ii) The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.196/2023 i.e. after committal Sessions Case No.24/2023 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.504/2022 dated 29.10.2022 registered with Police Station, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Ramesh Vinayak Patil in Criminal Application No.2722 of 2024 and applicant Dipak Chandan Patil in Criminal Application No.2260 of 2024.