2025:BHC-NAG:3875-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.543 OF 2020

1. Narendra Gunwantrao Deshmukh, Aged about 63 years, Occ : Agriculturist.

2. Bhanudas s/o Gajanan Pawar, Aged about 50 years, Occ : Agriculturist.

3. Kishor s/o Bhujangrao Deshmukh, Aged about 41 years, Occ : Agriculturist.

(1 to 3 R/o. Post Mhaisang, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola) .. Applicants ..Versus..

1. The State of Mahrashtra, Through P.S.O. P.S. Yeoda, Tq. Daryapur, District-Amravati Rural.

2. Ujwala wd/o Shashikant Mankar, Aged 37 years, Occ : Household R/o. Bhuikhed, Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati Rural. .. Non-Applicants ……….

Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri V.R.

Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants.

Shri Nikhil H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-Applicant No.1/State.

Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.

…………

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 08, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The applicants, who are three in numbers, have approached to this Court by way of present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with prayer for quashing and setting aside Chargesheet No.15/2025 dated 21.01.2025 arising out of Crime No.111/2020 registered with Police Station Yeoda, District-Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the wife of deceased Shashikant Ganeshrao Mankar lodged the report on 02.06.2020 alleging that due to continuous threats given by the applicants to the deceased to take forcible possession of the agricultural lands of the deceased, he committed suicide. It is stated in the complaint that the applicant no.1 is the money-lender and deceased used to take hand-loan from the applicant no.1. It is stated that in the year 2018, the husband of the informant was in need of money and, therefore, he approached to the applicant no.1, who had shown willingness to give money to the deceased on a condition that the deceased had to execute nominal sale deeds of the agricultural fields. It is stated that thereafter the deceased came home and discussed with the informant and his brothers and since he was in dire need of money, he accepted the proposal and agreed to execute the nominal sale deeds. 4. The complaint further discloses that such sale deeds were executed by the deceased and against the same, he received Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.6,10,000/- from the applicant no.1. It is alleged that despite the repayment of the said amount along with interest, the accused failed to reconvene the lands in favour of the deceased and started threatening the deceased to hand over possession of the lands in their favour. It is, therefore, alleged that he was continuously under the pressure of such threats and because of it, he committed suicide.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, at the outset, submits that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken on its face value as true, no offence constitute as the prerequisites namely, to instigate, to aid and abet to constitute the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are absent. It is further argued that both the sale deeds against which Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.6,10,000/- was alleged to have received by the deceased, were not executed by the deceased, but it was executed by Vijay Ganeshrao Mankar and Pandurang Ganeshrao Mankar, the real brothers of the deceased respectively. He, therefore, submits that the allegation made in the report that the sale deeds were executed by the deceased is not correct and the sale deeds falsify such allegation.

7. He further pointed out that the sale deeds are not a nominal sale deeds, but the actual one. While