.
NAGPUR: Reiterating the limits of judicial intervention at the threshold stage, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution, particularly when the allegations disclose a prima facie offence requiring trial. A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande dismissed a criminal application filed by a businessman from Buldhana, seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Ramtek police station in Nagpur (rural) on April 6, 2025, for offences including abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS.
After a man died by suicide on April 2, 2025, his wife lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner drew her husband into a partnership venture for supplying shed-nets to farmers under a govt scheme, persuaded him to obtain bank loans, and later failed to supply material or repay dues. As per the FIR, farmers repeatedly approached the man, while bank officials demanded repayment. The woman alleged her husband died by suicide due to the pressure coupled with harassment. Additional govt pleader Neeraj Jawade opposed the petition which was filed under CrPC Section 482 for quashing the FIR. The bench underscored settled legal principles governing abetment while rejecting the petition. “For attracting offence under Section 108 of BNS, what is required is a direct or proximate act which leads the deceased to commit suicide,” the court observed, adding that such an act must have a clear nexus with the suicide. On examining the FIR, the judges said, it “spells out detailed methodology of the petitioner to drive persons like the husband of the complainant to commit suicide,” holding that prima facie material existed against the businessman. The bench also noted the prosecution’s submission that similar FIRs for identical offences were registered against the petitioner, reinforcing the need for a full-fledged trial. Emphasising judicial restraint, the court said the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of CrPC must be exercised “sparingly and with great circumspection” and cannot be used to “stifle legitimate prosecution”. Allegations and counter-allegations, it added, must be tested “on the anvil of cross-examination” during trial. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, including the State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan case, the bench concluded that this case did not warrant interference at the investigation stage. The businessman’s criminal application was rejected, clearing the way for the probe to continue.
