The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling, reinforcing the strict limits on judicial intervention during the initial stages of a criminal case. The court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR related to an abetment of suicide charge, holding that the inherent powers of the court cannot be used to obstruct a legitimate prosecution.
Court Upholds Prima Facie Case for Trial
A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande rejected the criminal application filed by a businessman from Buldhana. The applicant had sought the quashing of an FIR registered at the Ramtek police station in Nagpur (rural) on April 6, 2025. The case involves offences including abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR stems from a tragic incident where a man died by suicide on April 2, 2025. His wife, the complainant, alleged that the petitioner businessman had drawn her husband into a partnership for supplying shed-nets to farmers under a government scheme. She claimed the petitioner persuaded her husband to obtain bank loans but later failed to supply the material or repay the dues. According to the complaint, the deceased faced relentless pressure from farmers and bank officials for repayment, which ultimately led him to take his own life.
Legal Principles on Abetment and Judicial Restraint
Opposing the petition, Additional Government Pleader Neeraj Jawade argued for the prosecution. The bench meticulously examined the settled legal principles governing abetment. The court observed, "For attracting offence under Section 108 of BNS, what is required is a direct or proximate act which leads the deceased to commit suicide." It emphasized that such an act must have a clear nexus with the suicide.
Upon scrutinizing the FIR, the judges concluded that it "spells out detailed methodology of the petitioner to drive persons like the husband of the complainant to commit suicide." The bench found that prima facie material existed against the businessman, warranting a full trial. It was also noted that similar FIRs for identical offences were registered against the petitioner, further strengthening the argument for a thorough investigation and trial.
Emphasis on Sparing Use of Inherent Powers
The court delivered a strong message on judicial restraint. It underscored that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be exercised "sparingly and with great circumspection" and cannot be invoked to "stifle legitimate prosecution." The bench stated that allegations and counter-allegations are best tested "on the anvil of cross-examination" during the trial itself.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, including the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan, the High Court concluded that the present case did not warrant judicial interference at the investigation stage. The bench's dismissal of the criminal application paves the way for the police probe to continue unimpeded, ensuring the allegations are properly examined through due process of law.
