Gujarat High Court
Devrajbhai Khodhabhai Sakhiya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Sandeep N. Bhatt
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 5026 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17558 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5049 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5190 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5621 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5637 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6403 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17560 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DEVRAJBHAI KHODHABHAI SAKHIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA R PARIKH(8769) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/10/2023
1. The present group of petitions are filed by
challenging the proceedings initiated pursuant to the
F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-39 of 2017 registered at Lodhika
Police Station, Rajkot (Rural) for the offences under
Sections 306, 384, 387, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 5, 32 and 33 of the
Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
2. Since the issues involved in the present applications
are arising from the same F.I.R. and, by and large, the
contentions raised by the respective parties are identical
in nature, the entire group of petitions has been heard
together and decided through this common judgment at
the request of the respective parties, the matters have
been heard finally, and Special Criminal Application
No.5026 of 2017 being considered as the lead matter.
3. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the
petitioner in Special Criminal Application No.5026 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
2017 are as such that the petitioner currently resides
within the limits of Rajkot Municipal Corporation. In
December 2015, the petitioner was appointed as the
District President of the Bhartiya Janta Party for Rajkot
District. Furthermore, the petitioner was elected from the
Agriculture constituency of Rajkot, which includes
Lodhika and Paddhari, to the Agriculture Produce
Market Committee in August 2016. Subsequently, the
petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Rajkot
Agriculture Produce Market Committee. It's important to
note that the petitioner is not involved in any business
activities and is not a partner in any business ventures.
For the past five years, the petitioner has refrained from
engaging in business, and their son is now independently
managing their business affairs and residing separately.
It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition are as such that Rameshbhai Gamdha and his
family have accumulated liabilities totaling more than Rs.
100 crores from banks, financial institutions, and private
finances. Rameshbhai Gamdha obtained loans of
approximately Rs. 8 crores from Raj Bank, Rajkot, and
Rs. 36 crores from Dena Bank. Additionally, Rameshbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
and his brother have entered into registered agreements
to sell their land in Village: Abhepur, Makhavada, to
various individuals. Notably, the petitioner has no
association with Tirupati Finance. A complaint was filed
by Shri Niteshbhai Babubhai Shingada of Village:
Chandli, Tal.: Lodhika, Dist.: Rajkot, to the D.S.P. Rajkot
(Rural), requesting the filing of a complaint under
Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
against Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha, his brother,
brother's son, and brother-in-law. Similarly, Shri
Dineshbhai Lavjibhai Vekariya of Village: Thordi, Tal.:
Kotda Sangani, Dist.: Rajkot, submitted an application to
D.S.P. Rajkot (Rural) seeking a complaint under Sections
406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Rameshbhai
Gamdha's actions, including his refusal to repay
agriculturists who had supplied cotton and groundnuts,
drew attention when he purportedly consumed poison on
09.06.2017, with news of this incident appearing in
publications on 11.06.2017.
It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition are as such that on 13.06.2017, the complainant
filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
City, and D.S.P., Rajkot (Rural), leveling allegations
against various individuals, including the present
petitioner. On 01.07.2017, 24 days after the incident,
Shri Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha passed away in a
hospital. However, the complainant refused to accept
Rameshbhai's body and began dictating terms to the
police. Consequently, the police registered a complaint
against nine individuals on 04.07.2017, with the
petitioner listed as accused no.1. Initially, 11 names were
provided by the complainant, but only seven were
included, with the petitioner's name added later on
04.07.2017. Between 09.06.2017 and 01.07.2017, the police
did not record any statement from Rameshbhai, and no
dying declaration was obtained from him due to the
complainant's interference. The complainant prevented the
police from registering the complaint, conducting an
investigation, recording Rameshbhai's statement, or
allowing access to him. It is essential to note that the
petitioner has never engaged in any transactions with
the complainant's husband, and there is no mention of
the petitioner's involvement in any aspect of this matter.
It appears that, realizing their inability to repay
substantial debts to creditors and agriculturists, a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
deliberate plan was orchestrated, including the
consumption of poison, to implicate multiple individuals.
As a result, the present petition(s) has been filed.
4. Heard the learned advocate, Mr. Bharat T. Rao,
representing the petitioner(s) in Special Criminal
Application Nos.5026 of 2017, 5190 of 2017, 5621 of
2017, 5637 of 2017, and 6403 of 2017, Mr. Ashish Dagli,
the learned advocate, representing the applicant(s) in
Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 17558 of 2017 and 17560
of 2017, Mr. Satyam Chhaya, the learned advocate,
representing the petitioner in Special Criminal
Application No. 5049 of 2017, Mr. Aditya R Parikh, the
learned advocate, representing the respondent No. 3 -
the original complainant herein and Mr. Chintan Dave,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP),
representing the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat
herein.
5.1 The learned advocate, Mr. Bharat T. Rao,
representing the petitioner in Special Criminal
Application Nos. 5026 of 2017, 5190 of 2017, 5621 of
2017, 5637 of 2017, and 6403 of 2017, has submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
that in Special Criminal Application No. 5026 of 2017
that the petitioner, Devrajbhai Khodhabhai Sakhiya, is
falsely implicated in the impugned F.I.R. This is solely
due to the fact that his son, who operates under the
business name of Tirupati Finance, is a prominent leader
within the political party. Devrajbhai has previously
served as the District President of the Bhartiya Janta
Party for Rajkot District and is actively involved in
numerous social activities, serving as a trustee for
various institutions and as the chairman of several co-
operative societies. Furthermore, he submits that the
deceased, Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha, a resident of
Village: Abhepar, Tal.: Lodhika, Dist.: Rajkot, had
borrowed significant sums of money from various banks
and individuals. He was engaged in several business
ventures under the name 'Ishwar Ginning Factory,'
located in Village: Biliyada, Tal. Gondal. This firm,
Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha, operated as a
partnership between Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha and
his brother. Additionally, they ran another unit named
'Ishwar Oil Mill' situated in Jamvadi, G.I.D.C., Tal.:
Gondal, Dist.: Rajkot, as well as another unit called
'Ishwar Oil Industries,' located near Devada Patiya on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
Kalavad Road. Furthermore, they operated a shop in the
Agriculture Produce Market Committee in Rajkot under
the name and style of 'Ishwar Trading Company'.
5.2 Furthermore, Mr. Rao has submitted that that
Rameshbhai had obtained a loan of approximately Rs. 8
crores from Raj Bank, Rajkot, and around Rs. 36 crores
from Dena Bank. Moreover, he has highlighted that
Rameshbhai's businesses were operating at a loss,
making it impossible for him to fulfill his obligations to
agriculturists and suppliers of cotton and groundnuts.
Additionally, he was engaged in speculative business
activities, resulting in substantial financial losses.
Consequently, Rameshbhai resorted to borrowing
significant amounts from the market by selling or
mortgaging agricultural land located in Village: Abhepara,
Tal.: Lodhika, Village: Ratanpur, Village: Bhadukiya, Tal.:
Kalavad, and other immovable properties that were
mortgaged to various individuals. Furthermore, he
submits that the liability of Rameshbhai Gamdha and
his family exceeds Rs. 100 crores, owed to banks,
financial institutions, and private financiers. Additionally,
he points out that both individuals and agriculturists
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
have filed numerous applications with the relevant police
authorities. One such application was submitted by
Niteshbhai Babubhai Shingada of Village: Chandli, Tal.:
Lodhika, Dist.: Rajkot, addressed to the D.S.P. Rajkot
(Rural), requesting the initiation of a complaint under
Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
against Rameshbhai Jadavbhai Gamdha, his brother,
brother's son, and brother-in-law.
5.3 Furthermore, Mr. Rao has submitted that a similar
complaint has been filed by Dineshbhai Lavjibhai
Vekariya of Village: Thordi, Tal.: Kotda Sangani, Dist.:
Rajkot. Dineshbhai Lavjibhai Vekariya submitted an
application to D.S.P. Rajkot (Rural), requesting the
initiation of a complaint under Sections 406, 420, and
114 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, several
complaints have also been filed against the Rameshbhai
in this case due to his failure to repay the owed
amounts. Furthermore, he submits that prima facie, it is
evident from various articles published in newspapers
and magazines that Rameshbhai committed fraud
involving crores of rupees with agriculturists and had no
intention of re-paying the amount. Additionally, he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
pointed out that Rameshbhai faced financial trouble due
to the prevailing market conditions, resulting in his
default on re-payments to certain borrowers and
bank/financial institutions.
5.4 Furthermore, Mr. Rao has submitted that for
reasons best known to him, on 9.6.2017, Rameshbhai
committed suicide by consuming poison at his factory
premises, specifically at Ishwar Oil Industries. He was
subsequently hospitalized at Rajkot Pragati Hospital,
Rajkot. On 13.6.2017, the complainant in the present
case filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police,
Rajkot City, and the District Superintendent of Police
(DSP), Rajkot (Rural), wherein various allegations were
made against several individuals, including the present
petitioner. Furthermore, he submits that following this,
Rameshbhai survived for 24 days in the hospital and
unfortunately passed away on 1.7.2017. As a result, the
complainant filed the complaint against 9 individuals,
including the present petitioner, on 4.7.2017.
Consequently, the present petition has been filed.
5.5 Furthermore, Mr. Rao has submitted that that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
initially, when the complaint was filed on 4.7.2017, it
included charges against only 8 individuals. However, on
an earlier occasion, on 13.6.2017, the complaint submitted
to the DSP listed 11 persons as accused. Hence, this
conduct of the complainant in this manner also needs to
be taken into consideration appropriately. Furthermore,
he submits that in this context, if the petitioner,
Devrajbhai Khodhabhai Sakhiya, has no involvement in
any transactions whatsoever and has been wrongly
implicated in the complaint, it should be considered.
Therefore, he argues that even if, for the sake of
argument, the petitioner has some interest in his son's
firm, Tirupati Finance, which operates under a license
granted by the Money Lenders Act, and has extended
financial assistance backed by appropriate security and
cheques, this in itself does not constitute an offence.
Seeking recovery of a legitimately provided finance
through legal means does not amount to an offence.
Furthermore, he submits that ingredients of Sections
306, 384, 387, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 read with Sections 5, 32 and 33 of the Gujarat
Money Lenders Act are not satisfied on the face of
reading of the complaint.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
5.6 Furthermore, Mr. Rao has submitted that that when
the deceased had consumed poison and was capable of
providing a statement, he did not file any complaint with
the police during his period of survival after ingesting
the poison. Subsequently, after the death of the deceased,
the complaint was filed by the present complainant,
which occurred almost 27 days after the incident took
place. This significant delay in filing the complaint
should be taken into account. Furthermore, the conduct
of the complainant should also be taken into
consideration. The complainant had entered into
compromises with certain individuals named in the
earlier complaint dated 13.6.2017. Subsequently, when the
F.I.R. was filed with the Police Station, it was registered
against only 7 persons. According to the petitioner's
assertions, the complainant has received a substantial
amount through settlements with those four individuals.
Therefore, the conduct of the complainant needs to be
taken into consideration, and it appears that the present
F.I.R. is an attempt to exert pressure on individuals who
are legitimately seeking re-payment of the funds they
provided to the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
5.7 Furthermore, in support of his submissions, Mr. Rao
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases
of M. Arjunan versus State by its Inspector of Police
reported in (i) 2018 (0) AIJEL-SC 63213 and (ii)
International Advanced Research Centre For Power
Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Others versus
Nirma Cerglass Technics Private Ltd. and Another
reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348. He has also placed
reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases
of (i) Pravinbhai Jivrambhai Deria versus State of
Gujarat reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 245849, (ii) dipak
Jayram Viras versus State of Gujarat reported in 2023
(0) AIJEL-HC 245923, (iii) Lalitbhai Vikrambhand Parekh
versus State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc.
Application No.16032 of 2014 dated 10.4.2015, (iv)
Vallabhbhai Vaghijibhai Vaghasiya versus State of
Gujarat reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237706, (v) A.K.
Chaudhary versus State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (3)
GLH 444, and has submitted that no offence is made
out against accused persons, considering these judgments
in the facts of the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
5.8 In light of the above judgments, he has submitted
that merely seeking the re-payment of borrowed amounts
from the deceased would not constitute any instigation or
abetment in the act of suicide. Furthermore, he argues
that there is no clear proximity between the alleged
incident and any demands made by the accused
individuals. Therefore, Mr. Rao has prayed that this is a
fit case for this Court to exercise its powers under
Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
5.9 He has also pointed out that in the other cases,
specifically Special Criminal Application Nos. 5190 of
2017, 5621 of 2017, 5637 of 2017, and 6403 of 2017,
similar facts are emerging, and the legal contentions
remain the same. Mr. Rao has highlighted certain
complaints filed by farmers against the deceased
individuals and has drawn attention to registered
documents executed by the deceased in favour of the
respective accused individuals as security for the finances
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
they availed. Consequently, he has submitted that in
these cases as well, the respective petitioners have been
falsely implicated. Therefore, he requests that this
petition be granted.
6.1 Mr. Satyam Chhaya, the learned advocate
representing the petitioner in Special Criminal
Application No.5049 of 2017, submits that he is adopting
the arguments put forth by the learned advocate Mr.
Rao for the petitioner. By relying the impugned F.I.R.,
he emphasizes that there is no iota of evidence that
even remotely connects the present petitioners - the
accused individuals - to the alleged offense under Section
306 or any other section. It is clear that, prima facie,
there is no material about of abetment in the
commission of suicide or any indication of instigation.
Merely demanding re-payment of the loan amount and
seeking the recovery of such funds should not be
construed as an offense under any provisions of the law.
6.2 Furthermore, he submits that in a judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs State of M.P reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
was observed that even if words like "go and die" are
used, it may not necessarily attract Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, by relying on the
arguments presented by learned advocate Mr. Rao, he
has submitted that no prima facie offense can be
established against the present petitioner under Section
306 of the IPC or any other sections. Hence, considering
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Bhajan Lal (supra), he prays to allow the present
petition.
7.1 Mr. Ashish Dagli, the learned advocate representing
the applicant(s) in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 17558
of 2017 and 17560 of 2017, submits that he has adopted
majority of the arguments presented by learned advocate
Mr. Rao for the petitioner. Additionally, he provides
further context by emphasizing the factual aspects of the
matter.
7.2 Mr. Dagli has submitted that the deceased had
borrowed a significant amount from the public,
amounting to crores of rupees. The deceased's firm used
to procure cotton from agriculturists at market prices
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
and then sell it at a profit. Speculating that cotton
prices would rise, the deceased collected a substantial
quantity of cotton from various agriculturists.
Traditionally, the deceased was required to make cash or
check payments within 30 days to the agriculturists, who
provided the cotton. However, the deceased was unable
to fulfill these payments, which led to a complaint filed
by one of the agriculturists under Section 406 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code. Other individuals also filed
multiple complaints with the District Superintendent of
Police (DSP) and made detailed representations to the
Police Commissioner regarding the same.
7.3 Furthermore, Mr. Dagli has submitted that the
deceased had borrowed approximately Rs.8 to 9 Crores
from Dena Bank and around Rs.45 Crores from various
sources in the market. On 9.6.2017, the deceased
consumed a poisonous substance, and on 13.6.2017, the
deceased's wife made a representation to the Police and
DSP, providing the names of around 10 to 12 persons
involved in the matter.
7.4 Mr. Dagli has argued that in this context, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
should be considered, particularly in view of Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code. He also mentions recent
judgments, such as the one in the case of Narendra
Sarvaiya vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 6556 of 2021, where this Court has dealt
with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally,
he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat
(Criminal Appeal No. 1291 of 2008) and the case of
Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs. The State Of Maharashtra
And Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 781, where the Hon'ble Apex
Court has provided comprehensive guidance on the
matter.
7.5 Furthermore, Mr. Dagli has relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases such as Netai Dutta
v. State of W.B. (2005 (2) SCC 659), Gangula Mohan
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2010) 1 SCC 750),
and a judgment of this Court in the case of A.K.
Chaudhary. By citing these judgments, he argues that
the present petition should be considered for the
quashing of the F.I.R. Continuing with the proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
would constitute an abuse of the legal process, resulting
in harassment for the petitioner(s). This would essentially
provide an advantage to the complainant, who, in an
attempt to evade responsibility for re-paying legitimate
debts borrowed from various individuals, has filed a
baseless complaint where no offense is made out and
therefore, he prays to allow this application.
8.1 On the other hand, Mr. Aditya R Parikh, the
learned advocate representing the respondent No. 3 (the
original complainant), and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the
respondent No. 1 (the State of Gujarat), had presented
their arguments and a report dated 21.9.2023 received
from the Dy.S.P., Gondal was tendered by the learned
APP. They contended that there is prima facie material
available on the record that clearly connects all the
accused persons who have filed various petitions before
this Court.
8.2 Mr. Parikh and Mr. Chintan Dave have argued the
matter in suuport of each other and had submitted that
one of the accused, Ghanshyambhai Vallabhbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
Pambhar, had provided finance of Rs. 2 crores to the
deceased, Rameshbhai Gamdha, at the rate of 4% p.m.
interest. Subsequently, Ghanshyambhai had constantly
threatened Rameshbhai through phone calls and visits to
his residence and business. Ghanshyambhai also obtained
various land documents under duress from the deceased.
They further argue that Lakhabhai Ravatbhai Aahir @
Metara had financed Rs. 3 crores at the rate of 3% p.m.
interest and engaged in similar threatening behavior.
Rajeshbhai Devrajbhai Sakhiya and Devrajbhai
Khodhabhai Sakhiya, both father and son, provided Rs.
28 crores in finance to the deceased at a monthly
interest rate of 3%. They also compelled the deceased to
execute registered land agreements covering various
parcels of land. Constant threats were made by them,
both in person and over the phone, to recover the
amounts. Dineshbhai Naranbhai Parsana, another
accused, offered a loan of Rs. 1 crore at a monthly
interest rate of 3% and compelled the deceased to
execute an agreement for five and a half acres of land.
Dineshbhai also subjected the deceased to constant
threats. Ravjibhai Laljibhai Tanti and his two sons,
Ravjibhai Tanti and Sandip Ravjibhai Tanti, financed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
deceased at a monthly interest rate of 4%. They also
coerced the deceased into executing land agreements and
subjected him to constant threats and torture.
Furthermore, Babubhai Mepabhai Bambhava provided Rs.
11 crores in finance at a monthly interest rate of 5%.
He also compelled the deceased to execute agreements for
12 acres of land and took approximately 1 kg of gold,
along with documents related to nine residential premises
and a 1100 sq. yard plot of the deceased. Babubhai
continued to threaten the deceased and his family
members.
8.3 Both the learned advocates have further submitted
that during the course of investigation, a suicide note
written by the deceased was found. It revealed that the
deceased had been under constant pressure and threats
from the accused persons, both through telephonic calls
and personal visits to his business and residential
premises, which caused great harassment to the deceased
and his family members. Therefore, they contend that
the ingredients of Section 107 read with Section 306 are
satisfied in this case against all the accused individuals.
They have submitted that all the accused played a vital
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
role by providing financial assistance, obtaining
documents in their favor, and compelling the deceased to
execute agreements or write checks in their favor.
8.4 In support of their argument, they have cited
several judgments, including (i) Mahendra K.C. versus
State of Karnataka (2022) 2 SCC 129, (ii) Rajeev Kourav
versus Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317, (iii) Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel versus State of Gujarat (2018) 3 SCC
104, (iv) Narayan Malhari Thorat versus Vinayak Deorao
Bhagat and Another (2019) 13 SCC 598, (v) R.P. Kapur
versus State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388, and (vi) R.P.
Kapur versus State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC
866. They also refer to the judgment of this Court in
the case of Rameshbhai Vaghnbhai Desai versus State of
Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.7989
of 2009 dated 3.12.2009.
8.5.1 Mr. Aditya R Parikh, the learned advocate
representing the respondent No. 3 (the original
complainant), has drawn attention to the affidavit filed
by the complainant in all the matters. He argues that,
considering the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
Penal Code and the Money Lenders Act, the petitioner(s)
had lent money at an exorbitant rate of interest. Even
after repaying more than the principal amount borrowed,
the accused individuals continued to demand money from
the husband of the complainant. He emphasizes that the
petitioners employed various methods to pressure the
husband of the complainant to the point where he saw
no alternative but to take his own life and commit
suicide.
8.5.2 Mr. Parikh points to a table presented in the
affidavit, which shows that the annual interest rates on
the amounts financed by the various petitioners ranged
from 36% per annum to 60% per annum. He notes that
the deceased was compelled to execute various
documents, and not only that, but the deceased's
relatives were also coerced into executing various
documents, such as agreements of sale or sale deeds for
agricultural land, plots, and residential buildings.
8.5.3 Therefore, Mr. Parikh contends that a prima
facie case has been made out against the petitioner(s) for
offenses punishable under Sections 306, 384, 387, 506(2),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with
Sections 5, 32, and 33 of the Money Lenders Act.
Consequently, he prays the Court not to exercise its
extraordinary powers under either Section 226 of the
Constitution or the inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and urges the Court
to dismiss the petition.
8.6 Additionally, Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the
respondent No. 1 (the State of Gujarat), argues that in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus State of
Maharashtra and Others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315),
particularly para 80, the present petition should be
dismissed. He further emphasizes the nature of the
offense, where the deceased took drastic action by ending
his life due to continuous harassment caused by the
petitioners. Therefore, he prays the Court to dismiss this
petition.
9.1 I have considered the rival submission made by the
respective parties in respective petitions. It is evident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
that the deceased was engaged in business, particularly
in the purchase of agricultural products such as cotton
and groundnuts from farmers for his ginning and oil
industries. Due to certain circumstances, including
speculation, he was unable to repay the amounts owed,
especially to the farmers and various banks. Complaints
and representations were made by some of the farmers
against the deceased and his relatives to the police
authorities.
9.2 Furthermore, it is clear that the deceased also
failed to repay the amounts borrowed from Vijaya Bank
and other banks. Additionally, he had obtained financial
assistance from various individuals, including the present
petitioner(s), who were involved in providing financial
support to such borrowers. These petitioners had lent
substantial amounts to the deceased, charging interest
rates ranging from 36% per annum to 60% per annum.
Moreover, it appears that certain land documents or
valuable properties were executed in favor of the
petitioner(s), either by the deceased or some of his close
relatives.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
9.3 Based on the available evidence, it is evident that
there were constant demands for the recovery of these
amounts, often accompanied by threats, which took place
at the deceased's business premises and residence.
Subsequently, the deceased consumed poison, leading to
his hospitalization. He survived for approximately 24
days in the hospital but ultimately succumbed to his
injuries. It is worth noting that the complaint was filed
on 4.7.2017 by the wife of the deceased, who is the
present complainant. This was done after the treatment
period and following the unfortunate death of the
deceased on 1.7.2017. Considering these circumstances, it
cannot be said that there was delay in lodging the First
Information Report (F.I.R.). It is evident from the record
that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered
within a reasonable period of time, and it cannot be said
that there was a significant delay in registering the
F.I.R.
9.4 It is fruitful to refer the provisions of Sections 306,
384, 387, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
read with Sections 5, 32 and 33 of the Gujarat Money
Lenders Act, as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
"Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code:-
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.
Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code:-
384. Punishment for extortion.--Whoever commits
extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 387 in The Indian Penal Code:-
387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous
hurt, in order to commit extortion.--Whoever, in order
to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put
any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that
person or to any other, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation:-
506. Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code:-
114. Abettor present when offence is committed.--
Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to
be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or
offence for which he would be punishable in
consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be
deemed to have committed such act or offence.
Section 5 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act:-
5. No business of money-lending except registration. -
(1) No Money-Lender shall commence or carry on the
business of money-lending except in the area for which
he has been granted a registration and except in
accordance with the terms and conditions of such
registration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
(2) Non-banking finance companies registered under the
provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, (2
of 1934) with the Reserve Bank of India shall be
deemed to have been registered for the purposes of this
Act and they shall intimate to the concerned Registrar
about their such registration with the Reserve Bank of
India in the prescribed proforma.
Section 32 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act:-
32. Deposit in Court of money due to Money-Lender. -
(1) At any time, the debtor may tender to a Money-
Lender any sum of money due from him in respect of
a loan by way of principal or interest or both.
(2) If a Money-Lender refuses to accept any sum so
tendered, the debtor may deposit the said sum in the
Court which has jurisdiction to try the suit for the
recovery of such sum, to the account of the Money-
Lender.
(3) The Court shall thereupon cause written notice of
the deposit to be served on the Money-Lender, and the
Money-Lender may, on presenting a petition stating the
sum then due in respect of the loan, and his
willingness to accept the said sum, receive and
appropriate it first towards the interest and the
residue, if any, towards the principal.
(4) When the Money-Lender does not accept the sum,
the Court shall appropriate the said sum first towards
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
the interest and the residue, if any, towards the
principal.
Section 33 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act:-
33. Limitation on rate of interest. - (1) The State
Government may, from time to time by notification in
the Official Gazette, fix the maximum rates of interest
for any local area or class of business of money-lending
in respect of secured and unsecured loans.
(2) No agreement between a Money-Lender and a
debtor for payment of interest at rates exceeding the
maximum rates fixed by the State Government under
sub-section (1) shall be valid and no Court shall in
any suit to which this Act applies award interest
exceeding the said rates.
(3) No Money-Lender or a person advancing a loan
shall make an oral or written demand or charge or
receive from a debtor interest at a rate exceeding the
maximum rate fixed by the State Government under
subsection (1).
(4) Any loan in respect of which the Money-Lender or
any person has realized from the debtor an interest at
rates exceeding the maximum rates fixed by the State
Government under sub-section (1), shall stand
discharged and the amount of excessive interest, if any,
so realized shall be refunded by the Money-Lender or
any person, as the case may be, to the debtor. If the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
Money-Lender or any person fails to pay such amount
of excessive interest to the debtor, it shall be
recoverable from him as an arrears of land revenue,
and on recovery thereof, it shall be paid to the debtor."
9.5 Considering the material available on the record,
particularly the suicide note found during the course of
the investigation, it is clear that the deceased named
specific individuals and provided details of the
harassment he experienced from these individuals. These
details are available on the record of the Investigating
Officer'. The existence of the suicide note, authored by
the deceased, supports the allegations made by the
complainant. Prima facie, an offense under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code is made out, considering the
provisions of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as
under:
"107. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
thing; or
(Thirdly) -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A
person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a 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 C 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
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act."
9.6 Prima facie, there is evidence of instigation and
proximity to the incident in which the deceased
consumed poison. The constant torture and demands for
money made by the accused persons on the deceased
support the allegations. It cannot be proper to accept the
arguments of petitioner(s) that the ingredients of Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code are not prama facie
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
satisfied in this case.
9.7.1 Furthermore, the judgments cited at the bar by
the learned advocate for the petitioner/s, there is no
dispute about the ratio of those judgments, which are
binding also to this Court. However, it is relevant to
note that the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Mahendra K.C. (supra), paragraphs 27 to
29, 32, and 33 are more relevant in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as under:
" 27. While adjudicating on an application under
Section 482 CrPC, the High Court in the present case
travelled far away from the parameters for the
exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially, the task before
the High Court was to determine whether the
allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety did or did not prima
facie constitute an offence or make out a case against
the accused.
28 Instead of applying this settled principle, the
High Court has proceeded to analyze from its own
perspective the veracity of the allegations. It must be
emphasized that this is not a case where the High
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
Court has arrived at a conclusion that the allegations
in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. Nor is this a case where the criminal
proceeding is manifestly mala fide or has been
instituted with an ulterior motive of taking vengeance
on the accused. On the contrary, the specific
allegations in the FIR and in the complaint find due
reflection in the suicide note and establish a prima
facie case for abetment of suicide within the meaning
of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. The entire
judgment of the High Court consists of a litany of
surmises and conjectures and such an exercise is
beyond the domain of proceeding under section 482 of
the CrPC. The High Court has proceeded to scrutinize
what has been disclosed during the investigation,
ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by an
interim order of the High Court, during the pendency
of the proceedings under section 482.
29. The High Court observed that a prima facie case
for the commission of offence under Section 306 of the
IPC is not made out since: i) the suicide note does not
describe the specific threats; ii) details of the alleged
demand of Rs. 8 lacs from the deceased by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note;
and iii) no material to corroborate the allegations
detailed in the suicide note has been unearthed by the
investigating agency. The High Court observed that
since the deceased took considerable time to write a
twelve page suicide note, "it would have been but
natural for the author to set out the details". The
High Court has evidently travelled far beyond the
limits of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC
since instead of determining whether on a perusal of
the complaint, a prima facie case is made out, it has
analysed the sufficiency of the evidence with reference
to the suicide note and has commented upon and
made strong observations on the suicide note itself.
32. The Single Judge has termed a person who
decided to commit suicide a 'weakling' and has also
made observations on how the behavior of the deceased
before he committed suicide was not that of a person
who is depressed and suffering from mental health
issues. Behavioural scientists have initiated the
discourse on the heterogeneity of every individual and
have challenged the traditional notion of 'all humans
behave alike'. Individual personality differences
manifest as a variation in the behavior of people.
Therefore, how an individual copes up with a threat-
both physical and emotional, expressing (or refraining
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
to express) love, loss, sorrow and happiness, varies
greatly in view of the multi-faceted nature of the
human mind and emotions. Thus, the observations
describing the manner in which a depressed person
ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of
mental health issues.
33. The High Court by its order has prevented the
completion of the investigation in the complaint
registered as Crime No.565/2016 pending on the file of
the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and
JMFC Court, Maddur, Mandya District. The alleged
suicide is of a person who was working as a driver of
a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is a public
servant and against whom serious and grave
allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the
known sources of income were made by the deceased.
The suicide note contains a detailed account of the
role of the accused in the events which led to the
deceased committing suicide. These are matters of
investigation and possibly trial. The High Court stalled
the investigation by granting an interim order of stay.
If the investigation had been allowed to proceed, there
would have been a revelation of material facts which
would aid in the trial, for the alleged offence against
the second respondent."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
9.7.2 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kourav (supra),
paragraphs 8 to 11 are relevant, as under:
"8.` It is no more res integra that exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal
proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR
or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced
by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by
the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite
law that the High Court cannot embark upon the
appreciation of evidence while considering the petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal
proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this
Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.
9. Mr.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied upon several judgments
of this Court to submit that allegations only disclose a
case of harassment meted out to the deceased. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
ingredients of Section 306 and 107 IPC have not been
made out. It is submitted that there is nothing on
record to show that the Respondents have abetted the
commission of suicide by the deceased. He further
argued that abetment as defined under Section 107
IPC is instigation which is missing in the complaint
made by the Appellant. He further argued that if the
allegations against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not
prima facie made out, there is no reason why they
should face a criminal trial.
10. We do not agree with the submissions made on
behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on
the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded
under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly
inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into
consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a
petition filed under Section 482 CrPC1.
11. Moreover, the High Court was aware that one of
the witnesses mentioned that the deceased informed
him about the harassment meted out by Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 which she was not able to bear and hence
wanted to commit suicide. The High Court committed
an error in quashing criminal proceedings by assessing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
the statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C."
9.7.3 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Malhari
Thorat (supra), particularly, paragraphs 8 to 13, as
under:
"8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that
the High Court was not justified in entering into
questions whether the record prima facie established
that the respondent had requisite intention in order to
bring the matter within the confines of Section 306
IPC and in quashing the FIR in exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the
learned counsel appearing for first respondent relied
upon decisions of this Court in Netai Dutta v. State of
W.B.1; M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police2 and; State of Kerala and
Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others.3 in
support of his submission that in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court
was justified in quashing the FIR.
9. In Netai Dutta (supra) the suicide note had alleged
that Netai Dutta had engaged the victim in several
wrong doings; that the victim was required to be at
the workplace during the day and night on certain
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
occasions; and that though he had reported the fact
that he could leave the workplace only by 8 o' clock
in the evening when all the restaurants were closed
nothing was done by said Netai Dutta. It was in the
backdrop of these facts that this Court found the case
to be fit to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. In M. Mohan (supra) A-3 was stated to have told
Kamatchi (victim) that "if you want to go by a car,
you have to bring a car from your family", whereupon
said Kamatchi, her husband and the child were
required to take public transport. Few days thereafter
the victim committed suicide. After filing of the
charge-sheet A-3 was summoned under Sections 304B,
498A and 306 IPC. In proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the charges under
Sections 498A and 304B IPC but held that the
accused had to face trial for the offence under Section
306 IPC, which view was under challenge before this
Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court made following observations in paragraphs 48
and 49:
"48. In the instant case, what to talk of
instances of instigation, there are even no
allegations against the appellants. There is also
no proximate link between the incident of 14-1-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
2005 when the deceased was denied permission
to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide
which had taken place on 18-1-2005.
Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of
hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences which happen in our day- to-day life.
In a joint family, instances of this kind are not
very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from person to person. Each
individual has his own idea of self-esteem and
self-respect. Different people behave differently in
the same situation. It is unfortunate that such
an episode of suicide had taken place in the
family. But the question that remains to be
answered is whether the appellants can be
connected with that unfortunate incident in any
manner?
49. On a careful perusal of the entire material
on record and the law, which has been declared
by this Court, we can safely arrive at the
conclusion that the appellants are not even
remotely connected with the offence under Section
306 IPC. It may be relevant to mention that
criminal proceedings against the husband of the
deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
pending adjudication."
11. In State of Kerala and others (supra) the person
who committed suicide was a CBI official investigating
into a crime. According to the suicide note left behind
by the victim, two officials of CBI, who were in fact
juniors to him, an advocate as well as Chief Judicial
Magistrate were statedly responsible for the suicide.
Again, considering the facts, this Court upheld the
decision of the High Court in quashing the FIR. The
observations of this Court in paragraph 12 are
noteworthy. Said paragraph 12 was to the following
effect:
"12. As we find from the narration of facts and
the material brought on record in the case at
hand, it is the suicide note which forms the
fulcrum of the allegations and for proper
appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it
hereinbefore. On a plain reading of the same, it
is difficult to hold that there has been any
abetment by the respondents. The note, except
saying that the respondents compelled him to do
everything and cheated him and put him in deep
trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents
were inferior in rank and it is surprising that
such a thing could happen. That apart, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason,
for the Department had made him the head of
the investigating team and the High Court had
reposed complete faith in him and granted him
the liberty to move the Court, in such a
situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated
and to be put in trouble by the officers
belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has
also put the blame on the Chief Judicial
Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure
on him. He has also made the allegation against
the advocate."
13. We now consider the facts of the present case.
There are definite allegations that the first respondent
would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her
mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are
supported by the statements of the mother and the
wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The
record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there
was an altercation between the victim and the first
respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with
the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation
against first respondent, the High Court was not
justified in entering into question whether the first
respondent had the requisite intention to aid or
instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
juncture when the investigation was yet to be
completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed,
the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect
whether there was requisite mental element or
intention on part of the respondent.
14. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant. The judgment and
order under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the
present appeal is allowed. Since the investigation into
the matter was stalled as a result of the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we direct the concerned
authorities to complete the investigation as early as
possible."
9.7.4 Further, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, and more particularly para
80 is relevant, which is as under:
"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/
or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the
High Court would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our
final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of
the State operate in two specific spheres of activities
and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
the judicial process should not interfere at the stage
of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or
that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the
court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by this Court
in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the court when it exercises
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to
consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court
is not required to consider on merits whether or not
the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable
offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable
and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be
considered by the High Court while passing an
interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim
order of stay of investigation during the pendency of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
the quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order should not
require to be passed routinely, casually and/or
mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in
progress and the facts are hazy and the entire
evidence/material is not before the High Court, the
High Court should restrain itself from passing the
interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to
be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
before the competent court. The High Court shall not
and as such is not justified in passing the order of
not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during
the investigation or till the investigation is completed
and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii)
Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie
of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out
for grant of interim stay of further investigation,
after considering the broad parameters while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give
brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted
and/or is required to be passed so that it can
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and
the higher forum can consider what was weighed
with the High Court while passing such an interim
order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the
High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted"
within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must
clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be
adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be
adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad
which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
9.8 In light of the above considerations, I am of the
opinion that the allegations levelled against the present
accused individuals, prima facie ingredients under
Sections 306, 384, 387, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 5, 32, and 33 of
the Money Lenders Act are satisfied. These matters are
required to be investigated properly and thereafter
required to be tested during the trial. Therefore, without
further making any comments on the merits of the case,
I am not inclined to exercise the powers under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
9.9 Furthermore, it is important to take judicial notice
of serious issue in the society, particularly arising in this
particular region of the State, where illegal financial
activities by way of charging exorbitant interest rates,
also compounded interest, and the snatching away of
valuable properties under such duress from indebted
individuals are on the rise. This menace must be
addressed firmly with iron hand. This Court cannot be a
silent spectator when such highhanded activities resulted
in to cause for individuals to commit suicides, causing
immense hardships and sufferings to members of their
families. Therefore, the investigating authority should also
examine these incidents promptly and must carry out
investigation in proper manner in accordance with law.
In light of these considerations, the present petitions lack
merit and required to be dismissed. Contentions raised in
the petitions are required to be tested after proper
investigation and after submitting final report by the
Investigating Officer before the trail court, considering
the pendency of the proceedings since the year 2017, let
proper investigation be carried out expeditiously and
further proceedings shall also be expeditiously proceeded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5026/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
10. As a result, the present captioned petitions are
dismissed, with no order as to cost.
11. Rule stands discharged in all the petitions. Interim
relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated
forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
FURTHER ORDER
At the time of pronouncement of the CAV Judgment,
the learned advocate, Mr. Bharat T. Rao, representing the
petitioner(s) in the respective petitions, has requested for
extension of the stay of the order passed by this Court.
Considering the fact that these petitions are pending since
the year 2017, and due to the interim relief in operation,
which has impeded the process of the further investigation,
I am of the opinion that, having directed the authorities to
expedite the investigation in prompt manner, hence, the
request made by Mr. Rao, the learned advocate, for an
extension of interim relief is required to be denied.
Accordingly, the request of granting of interim relief (stay)
is rejected.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
