Chetanbhai Jayantibhai Solanki ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2832 Guj

     R/CR.MA/18067/2018                            ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18067 of 2018

==========================================================
      CHETANBHAI JAYANTIBHAI SOLANKI (KODI PATEL) & 2 other(s)
                             Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SAMATA V PATEL(3784) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
VRAJLAL C PATEL(8463) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
AVANI V PATEL(8016) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                  Date : 10/04/2023
                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Respondents waive service of rule.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused seek

to invoke inherent powers of this Court, for quashing of the FIR

being I-C.R.No.99 of 2018 registered with Bavla Police Station,

Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and

114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present

petition are that deceased was subjected to mental and

physical harassment by the applicants, as a result of

which, on 20.09.2018, she committed suicide by burning.

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

Pursuant to the FIR filed by the complainant, the

applicants have been chargesheeted for the offence as

referred above.

4. The original informant filed an affidavit, which is

taken on record. He has categorically stated that the

dispute with the applicants has been amicably settled with

the intervention of the friends and well-wishers and

pursuant to the settlement, he does not wish to prosecute

the accused and has no objection if the proceedings are

quashed.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties have

jointly submitted that:-

(1) In view of the compromise between the parties and

when same has not been secured through coercion,

threat or inducement, no prima facie case is made

out against the applicants for the alleged offence and

therefore, no useful purpose would be served by

continuing the proceedings as there is no possibility

of the accused being convicted for the alleged offence

and it would be unnecessary harassment and futile

attempt, if the prosecution is allowed to continue.

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

(2) On merits, it is submitted that the allegations leveled

in the FIR are accepted on its face value, it does not

make out the case for commission of the alleged

offence of suicide. Relying on the case of Chitresh

Kumar Chopra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009

(16) SCC 605), to submit that in order to convict a

person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a

clear mens rea to commit an offence and it also

requires an active 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.

Merely on allegations of harassment without their

being any positive action, proximate to the time of

occurrence, on the part of the accused, which led or

compel the deceased to commit suicide, the charge in

term of Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable.

(3) The allegations against the applicants, so far act of

cruelty is concerned, are extremely general in nature

and no specific role being assigned to them and

therefore, the allegations are not sufficient to attract

the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC and Dowry

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

Prohibition Act.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in case of Daxaben Vs. State

of Gujarat, AIR 2022 SC 3530, to contend that even

settlement has taken place, the court lacked the

jurisdiction to quash the FIR registered under Section 306

of the IPC, as the offence under Section 306 falls in the

category of heinous and serious offence and are to be

treated as crime against the society and not against

individual one. On merits of the case, it is submitted that

this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise

with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done

and fruitfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a

trial and therefore, when prima facie case is made out, the

application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the contentions raised by learned

counsel for the respective parties, the issue arise is

whether the FIR and consequential proceedings are liable

to be quashed in exercise of extraordinary and inherent

jurisdiction?

8. It is no doubt to true that pursuant to the

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

compromise arrived at between the parties, the original

informant - respondent no.2 has no objection if the

proceedings are quashed. On perusal of the settlement

affidavit, it appears that the settlement is voluntary,

without monetary benefit to be given to the complainant. In

the case of Daxaben (supra), in Para-50 of the judgment,

the Apex Court clearly laid down that offence under

Section 306 of the IPC would be fall in the category of

heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as

crime against the society and FIR under Section 306

cannot be quashed on the basis of financial settlement

with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children,

guardians or anyone else. It needs to be noted that the

Apex Court has not examined the question whether the FIR

discloses offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

9. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court

in the case of Daxaben (supra), this Court decides the case

on its own merits.

10. The applicants are charged with Section 306 of the

IPC. Section 306 provides that whoever abates the

commission of suicide, shall be punished with the

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

imprisonment and shall be also liable to be fine. The

essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the

IPC are (i) abatement, (ii) intention of the accused to aid or

instigate or abate the deceased to commit suicide. Mere

harassment by itself would not constitute the abatement of

suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting

that the accused intended by such act to instigate the

deceased to commit suicide. In other words, there must be

a prove of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the

commission of the suicide and therefore, whether a person

has abated to commit a suicide or not could only be

gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. In the facts of the present case, more particularly,

considering the fact of settlement and chargesheet case

papers, prima facie no case is made out against the

accused for the alleged offence under Section 306 of the

IPC.

12. It is no more res-intergra that inherent powers could

be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order

under Cr.P.C.; to prevent of abuse of process of Court; and

to otherwise secure ends of justice. Thus, considering the

R/CR.MA/18067/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2023

peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, this

Court is of the considered opinion that there is minimal

chances of witnesses coming forward in support of the

prosecution and chances of conviction appears to be

remote and/or bleak. In such circumstances, it would be

unnecessary harassment and futile attempt if the

prosecution is allowed to continue.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the

considered view that the application deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, following the guidelines in State of

Haryana & others Vs. Bhajanlal & others (1992 Suppl. 1

SCC 335), the application is allowed. The FIR being I-

C.R.No.99 of 2018 registered with Bavla Police Station,

Ahmedabad and all other proceedings arising therefrom are

quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) Rakesh