Gujarat High Court
Rohitbhai Bhimabhai Jalu vs State Of Gujarat on 1 November, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 11815 of 2022
==========================================================
ROHITBHAI BHIMABHAI JALU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAMARTH S AMIN(8897) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 01/11/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr.Divyang A. Joshi, learned advocate states that he has received
instructions to appear for and on behalf of the complainant and
shall file his Vakalatnama in the Registry. Registry is directed to
accept the same.
2. Rule. Respondents waive service of rule.
3. 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
C.R.No.11203006220174 of 2022 registered with Bantwa Police
Station, Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 306,
506(2), 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are that
the applicants had harassed the deceased keeping grudge in mind
that the deceased might had passed a secrete information to the
police, whereby the applicants have been implicated in the present
case of gambling. Therefore, it is allege that present applicants
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
have used foul language, mentally torture and not letting the
deceased out from his house, which ultimately the deceased has
committed the suicide by hanging himself on 01.10.2022. The
uncle of the deceased lodged an FIR against the applicants.
5. The original informant filed an affidavit, which is taken on record.
He has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicants have
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.
6. Learned counsels for the respective parties have jointly submitted
that:-
(1) The dispute is a private in nature and 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
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) There is an absolute no averments in the suicide note, except
referring the names of the applicants, there is no reference of
any act or incidents, whereby the applicants herein are
alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit an
act of suicide.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
in a trial and therefore, when prima facie case is made out, the
application is liable to be dismissed.
8. 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?
9. 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 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.
10.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.
11.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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
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.
12.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 and under the provisions of Atrocity Act.
13.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.
14.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 C.R.No.11203006220174 of 2022 registered with Bantwa
Police Station, Junagadh and all other proceedings arising
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11815/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023
undefined
therefrom are quashed qua present applicants herein. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Rakesh
