Dhanjibhai Ramabhai Vankar vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2429 Guj

     R/CR.MA/13748/2017                           ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13748 of 2017

==========================================================
                  DHANJIBHAI RAMABHAI VANKAR & 2 other(s)
                                 Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. VISHAL N PANDIT(7007) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                  Date : 21/03/2023
                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule forthwith. Respondents waive service.

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.46 of 2017 registered with Modasa Rural Police

Station, Amreli for the offences punishable under Sections

506(2),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, she

committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Pursuant

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

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. She 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, she

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.

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

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

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

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

Prohibition Act.

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

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 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

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

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 Indian Penal Code.

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 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. Cross FIR filed under Section

R/CR.MA/13748/2017 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2023

498(A) of the IPC has been quashed by this Court.

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 -C.R.No.46 of 2017 registered with Modasa

Rural Police Station, Amreli and all other proceedings arising

therefrom are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) Rakesh