Baburao S/O Kashiram Pawar vs State Of Mah. - Quashing of FIR

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Baburao S/O Kashiram Pawar vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Pittiguda ... on 16 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4745-DB

          Judgment

                                                                  33 apl102.20

                                             1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.102 OF 2020

          Baburao Kashiram Pawar, aged about 45
          years, occupation - headmaster, r/o
          Pittiguda, Post Nandapa, taluka Jiwati,
          district Chandrapur.                ..... Applicant.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

          1. State of Maharashtra, through its Police
          Station Officer Pittiguda (Nandapa),
          Chandrapur.

          2. Lata Subhash Pawar, aged about 38
          years, occupation: housewife, r/o
          Dhumne Layout, Gadchandur, taluka
          Korpana, district Chandrapur.      ..... Non-applicants.
          ================================
          Shri Abdul Subhan, Counsel for the Applicant.
          Shri N.B.Jawade, APP for NA No.1/State.
          ================================
          CORAM      : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
          DATE       : 16/03/2026

          ORAL JUDGMENT 1.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties

          Admit. Heard finally by consent.

.....2/-

Judgment

                                                    33 apl102.20

1. By this application, the present applicant is seeking

quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.35/2019 registered

with non-applicant No.1 police station for offence under Section

306 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out

of the same bearing chargesheet No.7/2025.

1. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by

non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) who is wife of deceased.

As per her report, her husband deceased Subhash Pawar

was serving as Superintendent with "Aashram School, Pittiguda,

tahsil Jivti, district Chandrapur and was residing at Hostel. Since

2013, the family of the deceased started residing at Gadchandur

for education of children. On 5.3.2019, she was informed by

Premdas Kaniram Pawar that Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo

Rathod and the present applicant and Nikhil Pawar had

altercations with the husband of the complainant and, therefore,

driven him out of the Aashram. Upon hearing the news of the

husband of the complainant, the complainant reached Gadchandur

and she was informed that Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo Rathod

and the present applicant are misappropriating grains required to

                                                        .....3/-

Judgment

                                                      33 apl102.20

be distributed to the school without informing the Managing

Committee and hence the deceased has objected such

misappropriation. However, they have started harassing him for

that reason and for the other reasons. Headmaster Lopchand

Namdeo Rathod had sent the deceased to tahsil office for bringing

allocated grains for the school and when the deceased returned

late, he was driven away from the school. Thus, it was alleged that

for one or other reason, the deceased was ill-treated to conceal

illegalities committed by Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo Rathod

and the applicant. The deceased was harassed to such an extent

that there was no alternative before him but to commit suicide and,

therefore, he has committed suicide by hanging himself.

On the basis of the said report, the police have registered

the crime against the present applicant.

1. After registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has

recorded relevant statements of witnesses and after completion of

the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the present

applicant.

.....4/-

Judgment

                                                           33 apl102.20

1. Learned counsel for the present applicant submitted that

even accepting the allegations as it is, except reference of name of

the present applicant in the FIR, there is absolutely no material to

connect the present applicant with the alleged crime. The entire

investigation papers nowhere reveal that it was the present

applicant who has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and,

therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. The deceased, in

fact, in his written statement, in response to the show-cause-notice,

stated that the present applicant is not responsible for his

harassment, but only Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo Rathod is

responsible. This statement is sufficient to show that it was co-

accused against whom allegations are made and not against the

present applicant.

He has also invited my attention towards various

statements of witnesses and submitted that the said statements of

witnesses also show that there were difference between

Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo Rathod and the present applicant.

As far as the present applicant is concerned, except vague

allegation, there is absolutely no material to connect him to show

                                                               .....5/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

that either he has instigated or aided the deceased to committ

suicide and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the

present applicant and, therefore, the application deserves to be

allowed.

1. Per contra, learned APP for State has strongly opposed the

said contentions and invited my attention towards written reply

filed by the deceased in response to the show-cause-notice which

was issued to him alleging illegalities committed by the present

applicant wherein he has specifically stated that it was the present

applicant who was also responsible for his death and, therefore, a

prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and,

therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

1. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire recital of

the FIR and statements of witnesses, admittedly, it shows that there

were differences between Headmaster Lopchand Namdeo Rathod

and the deceased.

1. As far as the present applicant is concerned, statement of

wife of the deceased discloses his name by saying that the present

                                                         .....6/-

Judgment

                                                         33 apl102.20

applicant was also harassing and torturing the deceased which

constrained the deceased to commit suicide.

1. Now, a question remains, whether this act of the present

applicant is sufficient to say that he has abetted the deceased to

commit suicide.

1. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which

reads thus:

"306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits

suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years,

and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification of offence. - The offence under this

section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-

compoundable and triable by Court of Session".
.....7/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

1. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45 of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing,

which reads thus:

1. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of

a thing, who--

First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

        Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or

        persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing,

        if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of

        that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that

        thing; or

        Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal

        omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful

        misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a

        material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily

        causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a

                                                            .....8/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

       thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that

       thing.

Illustration

       A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a

       Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact

       and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that

       is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend

       C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

       Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the

       time of the commission of an act, does anything in

       order to facilitate the commission of that act, and

       thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to

       aid the doing of that act.

1. Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:

1. Abettor.--

A person abets an offence, who abets either the

       commission of an offence, or the commission of an act

                                                         .....9/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

       which would be an offence, if committed by a person

       capable by law of committing an offence with the

       same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

       Explanation 1.-- The abetment of the illegal omission

       of an act may amount to an offence although the

       abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

       Explanation 2.-- To constitute the offence of abetment

       it is not necessary that the act abetted should be

       committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the

       offence should be caused.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is

       guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the

       instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is

       guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

.....10/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

       Explanation 3.-- It is not necessary that the person

       abetted should be capable by law of committing an

       offence, or that he should have the same guilty

       intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any

       guilty intention or knowledge.

Illustrations

(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic

       to commit an act which would be an offence, if

       committed by a person capable by law of committing

       an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here

       A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of

       abetting an offence.

(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B,

       a child under seven years of age, to do an act which

       causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment,

       does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's

       death. Here, though B was not capable by law of

       committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in

       the same manner as if B had been capable by law of

                                                         .....11/-

Judgment

                                                      33 apl102.20

       committing an offence, and had committed murder,

       and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in

       consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being

       incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he

       is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to

       the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has

       committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the

       offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable

       to the punishment, provided for that offence.

(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed,

       instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's

       possession. A induces B to believe that the property

       belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's

       possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property.

       B, acting under this misconception, does not take

       dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But

       A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same

       punishment as if B had committed theft.

.....12/-

Judgment

                                                    33 apl102.20

       Explanation 4.-- The abetment of an offence being an

       offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as

       offence.

Illustration

       A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly

       instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence

       in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be

       punished for his offence with the punishment for

       murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence,

       A is also liable to the same punishment.

       Explanation 5.-- It is not necessary to the commission

       of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the

       abettor should concert the offence with the person

       who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the

       conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is

       committed.

Illustration

                                                       .....13/-

Judgment

                                                       33 apl102.20

         A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed

         that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the

         plan to C mentioning that a third person is to

         administer the poison, but without mentioning A's

         name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures

         and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in

         the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z

         dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not

         conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the

         conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been

         murdered. C has therefore committed the offence

         defined in this section and is liable to the punishment

         for murder.

1. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about

abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission

of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten

years and shall also be liable to fine.

.....14/-

Judgment

                                                     33 apl102.20

1. The said Section penalizes abetment of commission of

suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution

must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide.

Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three

criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This

means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their

life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.

1. A question arises as to when is a person said to have

instigated another. The word "instigate" means to goad or urge

forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act" which the

person otherwise would not have done.

1. It is well settled that in order to amount to abetment, there

must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot

be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the

act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing

suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be

direct incitement to do culpable act.

1. In case of [Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal

Appeal](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1008939/) No.1485/of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023, the Hon'ble

                                                        .....15/-

Judgment

                                                        33 apl102.20

Apex Court explained ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code and held, as under:

"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission

of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the

prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in

the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align

with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC.

This means the accused either encouraged the individual

to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the

person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to

act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported

       in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has analysed different

       meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of [the said

       judgment](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58996485/) is reproduced herein:

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,

provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To

satisfy the requirement of instigation though it

is not necessary that actual words must be used

.....16/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

to that effect or what constitutes instigation

must necessarily and specifically be suggestive

of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty

to incite the consequence must be capable of

being spelt out. The present one is not a case

where the accused had by his acts or omission

or by a continued course of conduct created

such circumstances that the deceased was left

with no other option except to commit suicide

in which case an instigation may have been

inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or

emotion without intending the consequences to

actually follow cannot be said to be

instigation."

8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated

       by this Court in [M.Mohan vs. State](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1153850/), AIR 2011 SC

       1238, as under:

"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC

.....17/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion

to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court

dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word

"instigation" and "goading". The Court 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 selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is

impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula

in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be

decided on the basis of its own facts and

circumstances.

1. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding a

person in doing of a thing. Without a positive

act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid

in committing suicide, conviction cannot be

sustained.

.....18/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

1. 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 IPC 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."

8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted

       out in order to bring a case under [Section 106](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1606852/) IPC

       were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias [Jhantu vs.

       West Bengal](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/672002/) AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following

       paragraphs:

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the

view that before holding an accused guilty of

an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court

must scrupulously examine the facts and

.....19/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

circumstances of the case and also assess the

evidence adduced before it in order to find out

whether the cruelty and harassment meted out

to the victim had left the victim with no other

alternative but to put an end to her life. It is

also to be borne in mind that in cases of

alleged abetment of suicide there must be

proof of direct or indirect acts 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 person to commit suicide,

conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not

sustainable.

1. In order to bring a case within the purview

of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of

suicide and in the commission of the said

offence, the person who is said to have abetted

.....20/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

the commission of suicide must have played an

active role by an act of instigation or by doing

certain act to facilitate the commission of

suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the

person charged with the said offence must be

proved and established by the prosecution

before he could be convicted under [Section

306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) IPC."

8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of

           the instant case and the law regarding [Section 306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between

           the marital discord between the deceased and the

           appellant and her subsequent death by burning

           herself. The appellant has not committed any

           positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the

           commission of suicide by the deceased."

1. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.,

reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court extensively

dealt with the concept of 'abetment' in the context of the offence

                                                        .....21/-

Judgment

                                                    33 apl102.20

punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In that

case, the allegation against the accused/appellant therein was that

he had abetted the commission of suicide of his sister's husband

one Chander Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were

matrimonial disputes between sister of the appellant/accused and

her husband and in connection with the said disputes, the

appellant had allegedly threatened and abused Chander Bhushan.

Chander Bhushan committed suicide and the suicide was

attributed by the prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place

between the appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior.

It was alleged that the appellant had used abusive language

against said Chander Bhushan and had told him "to go and die".

The appellant, who had been chargesheeted for an offence

punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a

Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for

quashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was

dismissed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the

Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows :

"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that

.....22/-

Judgment

33 apl102.20

itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'.
The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to
do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate
or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
necessary concomitant of instigation."
19. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with the acts

or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the

deceased and which draw him to suicide will not be sufficient to

constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetal impulse or ill-

fated thoughts of the suicide, however unfortunate and touchy it

may be, cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in [Section

306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring out an offence

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code specific abetment as

contemplated by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the part

of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the

person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The

intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the

deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under [Section

306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) of the Indian Penal Code.

.....23/-

Judgment

                                                      33 apl102.20

1. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 306, 107, and and

108 of the IPC shows requirement is a positive act on the part of

the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in absence

of the same, the conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a

clear intention to commit the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

1. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged

abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts 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 person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

1. After going through the catena of judgments, it reveals that

the test the court should adopt in such types of cases to make

endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the material on record

whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the

accused intended the consequence of the act i.e. suicide. To attract

the provisions, what is to be shown is that, the accused have

actually instigated or aided to the victim's act of committing

                                                         .....24/-

Judgment

                                                       33 apl102.20

suicide. There must be direct or indirect incitement to the

commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have

played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act

to facilitate the commission of suicide.

1. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present

case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that except

reference of the name in the reply filed by the deceased to the

show-cause-notice issued to him wherein it is specifically

mentioned that the present applicant is not responsible for any

harassment which is caused to him. In view of that, a prima facie

case is not made out against the present applicant.

1. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [State of Haryana and ors vs.

Bhajan Lal and ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/), reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335

wherein principles have been laid down which are required to be

considered while considering applications for quashing of the

FIRs, which read as under:

(a) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they are

.....25/-
Judgment

                                                   33 apl102.20

       taken at their face value and accepted in their

       entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

       make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information

       Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the

       F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying

       an investi- gation by police officers under [Section

       156(1)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/833310/) of the Code except under an order of a

       Magistrate within the purview of [Section 155(2)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062869/) of

       the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

       FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in

       support of the same do not disclose the commission

       of any offence and make out a case against the

       accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute

       a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

       cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a

                                                      .....26/-

Judgment

                                                   33 apl102.20

       police officer without an order of a Magistrate as

       contemplated under [Section 155(2)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062869/) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or

       complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

       on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

       reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground

       for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

       any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

       Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)

       to the institution and continuance of the proceedings

       and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code

       or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

       the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

       attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding

       is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

       wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view

       to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

.....27/-

Judgment

                                                                               33 apl102.20

1.    By applying the aforesaid parameters [laid down by](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/) the
   
                      Hon'ble Apex Court in [State of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal
   
                      and ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/) supra and considering the facts and circumstances of the
   
                      present, admittedly, no prima facie case is made out against the
   
                      present applicant and, therefore, the application deserves to be
   
                      allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
   

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.35/2019 registered with non-
applicant No.1 police station for offence under Section 306 read

                       with 34 of the [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) and consequent proceeding arising out of the

                       same bearing chargesheet No.7/2025 are hereby quashed and set

                       aside to the extent of present applicant Baburao Kashiram Pawar.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

                       !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 25/03/2026 14:01:42