The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under section 306 of the IPC. The court emphasized the need for a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, as well as the absence of harassment proximate to the time of the suicide.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The applicants are seeking relief of quashing of First Information Report vide C.R. No. 564/2019 registered against the applicants with Railway Station Police Station, Aurangabad and consequent filing of charge sheet vide proceedings of R.C.C. No. 142/2020 for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Anjanabai Asaram Ingle is resident of Rahul Nagar, Near Railway Flyover, Jalna. Kailas (since deceased) was her son and Ashabai is her daughter-in-law. On 21.10.2019, there was quarrel between her son Kailas and daughter-in-law Ashabai and that quarrel was further aggravated. Kailas assaulted his wife Ashabai and in the said incident, Ashabai sustained head injury. Ashabai was admitted in the Deepak Hospital at Jalna. The complaint to that effect came to be lodged at Kadim Jalna Police Station, Jalna. The applicants alleged to have threatened Kailas.

4. On 01.11.2019, the applicants had been to the house of respondent No.2/Anjanabai and threatened Kailas with dire consequences.

5. On 02.11.2019, Kailas committed suicide on the railway track. Respondent No.2/Anjanabai came to Railway Police Station, Aurangabad and lodged F.I.R. alleging that the applicants had instigated her son Kailas to commit suicide by giving life threats. The applicants are responsible for the death of her son Kailas. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2/Anjanabai, C.R. No. 564/2019 came to be registered at Aurangabad Railway Police station under section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C. dated 06.11.2019.

6. The Investigating Officer after completing all the procedural aspects, submitted the charge sheet which is registered as R.C.C. No. 142/2020 and the same is in the process of committal.

7. Heard Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for State/Respondent No.1 and Mr R.A. Tambe, learned counsel for respondent No.2/first informant.

8. Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the story tried to be put forth by the prosecution through the first informant about alleged life threats given by the applicants and in view of apprehension to the life, Kailas committed suicide, has no foundation at all. The prosecution story is concocted and fabricated. He submitted that F.I.R. in question did not clearly spell out any direct role alleged against the applicants attributing commission of an offence under section 306 of I.P.C.. He submitted that even if allegations levelled against the applicants in the F.I.R. accepted at its face value, do not constitute an offence under section 306 of I.P.C. He submitted that there is absolutely no material placed on record with the charge sheet to speak about intention of the applicants to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that it is brought on record through the statement of wife of deceased that he was mentally disturbed and not in a fit state of mind. He was not doing any work and in a disturbed state of mind. The deceased had committed suicide. Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel submitted that criminal prosecution launched against the applicants is liable to be quashed. It would be an abuse of process of law in asking the applicants to face the trial when there is no iota of evidence to attract section 306 of I.P.C.

9. Mr S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the following citations :-

(i) Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200

(ii) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998

10. Mr G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent No.1 submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the applicants to attract section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C. He submitted that the applicants had giv