Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshbhai Jayantilal Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22562 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
BHAVESHBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PK JANI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JAYSHREE C BHATT(170) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive
service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective
respondents. With the consent of learned advocates
appearing for respective parties, present petition is
taken up for final hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
[2.0] By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"CrPC"), the petitioner - original accused No.3 has
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR
No.11192035220126 of 2022 registered with Mandal
Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "IPCP) and under Section 40 of
the Gujarat Money Lenders Act and to quash all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[3.0] Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Jani with
learned advocate Mr. Shivang Jani for the petitioner,
learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for respondent No.1 - State
of Gujarat and learned advocate Ms. Jayshree Bhatt
for respondent No.2 - original complainant.
[4.0] It is the case of the petitioner - original accused No.3
that petitioner is serving as Senior Branch Manager
since the year 2017 with Shriram Transport Finance
Co. Ltd. and is not required to directly engaged with
the customers. Further, the deceased viz. Kaushik
Patel had obtained a loan for an amount of
Rs.6,65,000/- for the purchase of JCB Machine.
However, the deceased did not make the repayment
of the loan and therefore, the petitioner in his official
capacity made a phone call to the deceased through
his mobile on 28.05.2022 requesting to make the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
payment of installment and that was the only
communication which was made by the petitioner. It is
alleged in the impugned FIR that due to constant
pressure and torture by the petitioner and other
accused as regards repayment of loan, the deceased
took the extreme step on 14.06.2022 and hence,
impugned FIR is filed by respondent No.2 - father of
the deceased. Hence, present petition is being filed.
[5.0] Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that petitioner is falsely enroped in the
offence and he has not played any role as alleged
against him by the complainant. He is employee of
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. from whom
deceased had taken the loan and petitioner has no
other reason except to perform and discharge his duty
as Senior Branch Manager. Further, the petitioner
made a call to the deceased only once requesting to
pay the installment of loan and it is not true that the
petitioner had contacted the deceased seven times as
alleged in the FIR and even the petitioner has not
made any call on the date of unfortunate incident i.e.
on 14.06.2022. The only call that the petitioner made
was on 28.05.2022 and after 16 days thereafter,
deceased has committed suicide and therefore, the
phone call made by the petitioner cannot be termed
as proximate cause for deceased to commit suicide.
Hence, he has requested to quash and set aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
impugned FIR and the further proceedings thereto.
[6.0] Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has
vehemently opposed the present petition and
submitted that the phone call made by the petitioner
to the deceased is the proximate cause for the
deceased to have taken the extreme step. She has
reiterated the contents of FIR and stated that
petitioner has made call to the deceased seven times
and pressurized the deceased for repayment of loan
amount. Further, she has submitted that though
deceased had made payment of Rs.5 lakh in cash to
the petitioner towards loan repayment still petitioner
was asking for the amount of loan and hence, the
deceased having left with no option committed
suicide. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the
present petition.
[7.0] Learned APP appearing for respondent - State of
Gujarat has adopted the submissions made by learned
advocate for respondent No.2 and has submitted that
present petition seeking quashing of FIR for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is not
required to be entertained and hence, has requested
to dismiss the present petition.
[8.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the
arguments canvassed by learned advocates appearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
for respective parties and gone through the impugned
FIR as well as the averments made in the petition.
[9.0] The essential ingredients to invoke the provision
of Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC:
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.
Abetment defined under Section 107 of the IPC
involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In
cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental
process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of
that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Abetment Section 107 IPC defines abetment
of a thing.
The offence of abetment is a separate and
distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A
person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he
instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These
things are essential to complete abetment as a crime.
The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite,
urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing.
The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of
Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of abetment
and there is no provision for the punishment of such
abetment, then the offender is to be punished with
the punishment provided for the original offence.
'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is
normally linked with the proved offence.
[9.1] Section 306 of IPC penalises abetment of suicide. It is a
unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code
that the only act, the attempt of which along will
become an offence. In order to invoke the provisions
of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, section 107 of
Indian Penal Code is required to be satisfied by the
prosecution. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code
includes the acts, omissions and commissions and also
instigation with the deliberation and intention.
Instigation consists in actively suggesting and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
stimulating another to act. It may be personal or
through a third party. Instigation necessarily indicates
some active suggestion, or support or stimulation to
the commission of the act itself. There has to be a
reasonable certainty in regard to the meaning of the
words used by the 'inciter' in order to judge whether
or not there was an incitement, but it is not necessary,
in law, to prove the actual words used for the
incitement. The word 'abetment' includes clause-3
namely 'abetment by aiding'. The third way of abetting
is by intentionally aiding the doing of a thing by an act
or illegal omission. In abetment by 'aid', it is not the
intention to aid the commission of crime, that is
punished, but the fact that something is done or not
done, whereby the commission of a crime is rendered
more easy. In instigation, the criminal intention is
punished; in conspiracy, the intention plus some act; in
aid, the act itself. Reading Cl. 3 of the section with
Expl.2, which goes with it, for abetment by aid, four
things must be combined :
(i) aid must be actually afforded by means of
an 'act or illegal omission';
(ii) there must be an intention to aid thereby;
(iii) the commission of the offence must be
facilitated thereby; and
(iv) the act or omission must take place either prior
to, or at the time of, the commission of the act
intended to be aided.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
[9.2] An act which merely amounts to aiding the
commission of an offence is not an abetment. The
aiding must snowball into 'intentionally aiding' the
doing of a thing. The commission of the act must be
the dominant intention of the person who aids it. If a
person only knows or has only reason to believe that
his act would facilitate the commission of offence, it
cannot be said that his dominant intention was that.
[9.3] On one part of the Sub-clause (3) of Section 107 can
be divided into two parts for doing and aiding act by
making omission in doing an act. At times even
refraining from action and mere impassivity makes a
person liable to penalty. If person is duty bound to
perform his duties in a particular manner and if he
does not behaved in a manner, he ought to have, he
causes continuous pressure and effects the mental
attitude to the victim. The omission on the part of the
accused shall include word 'aid' as mentioned in
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In present case
no such evidence in connection of abetment to suicide
being tendered by prosecution.
Thus, the case is required to be considered in
the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
[10.0] It is undisputed and admitted fact that the deceased
Kaushik Patel had taken loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. And present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
petitioner was working as Senior Branch Manager with
said finance company. It is the case of prosecution that
the son of respondent No.2 had borrowed amount
from accused Nos.1 to 4 viz. Jivan Bharwad, Kanti
Bharwad, Ronak Bharwad and Mahesh Bharwad on
higher rate of interest pursuant to which they had
made demand of higher rate of interest and it is
alleged that though the petitioner had paid Rs.5 lakh
towards loan to Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. the
petitioner had made demand to pay further loan
amount. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the deceased
had availed loan of Rs.6,50,000/- and had paid Rs.5
lakh but still there does exist an outstanding loan
amount on the fateful day. In the present case, the
only allegation against the present petitioner is that
the petitioner made seven phone calls to the deceased
for recovery of the loan amount. But, as a matter of
record, the petitioner made only one phone call on
28.05.2022 requesting the deceased to make the
payment of loan installment and after 16 days i.e. on
14.06.2022, the deceased took the extreme step.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, one phone call
by the petitioner cannot be said to be the proximate
cause for the deceased to take such an extreme step.
In this regard, reference is required to be made to the
decision in the case of Kumar alias Shiva Kumar vs.
State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 1283
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
wherein the witnesses claimed that the deceased had
told them about the harassment being meted out by
accused 15 days prior to the incident. Herein also, no
any proximate cause as phone call was made by the
petitioner to the deceased 16 days prior to the fateful
day.
[10.1] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal
vs. State of Madhy Pradesh reported in (2007)10 SCC
797 has held that instigation literally means to
provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion
to do anything. Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that
before a person may be said to have abetted the
commission of suicide, he must have played an active
role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
[10.2] In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
reported in (2010)12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as follows:―
"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. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 I.P.C. 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 that act
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide".
[10.3] In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State (represented by
its Inspector of Police) reported in (2019)3 SCC 315,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
elucidate the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC in the following
observations:
"The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or
abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of
the accused, however, insulting the deceased by
using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting that
the accused intended by such act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the
ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be
convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
[10.4] Similarly, in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2019)17 SCC 301, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients of
Section 306 of the IPC and the factors to be
considered in determining whether a case falls within
the ken of the aforesaid provision, in following
terms:―
"In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the
case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and convincing
proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission
of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person
would not suffice unless there be such action on
the part of the accused which compels the person
to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission
of suicide by another or not, could only be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of each
case."
[11.0] In aforesaid background and settled position of law,
the allegations leveled against the present petitioner
is quite different than other co-accused. Present
petitioner is not engaged in his personal capacity in
any transaction with the deceased. Whatever
transaction took place is with Shriram Transport
Finance Company which is a non-banking financial
company and its objective is to give finance and
deceased had received the finance as per the
prevailing norms and rules and regulations of the
finance company and as per the contract the deceased
was duty bound to pay the regular installment and
repay the amount with interest. No allegations against
the petitioner unlike other co-accused as present
petitioner had made a demand of exorbitant rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
interest and exploited the deceased. Even, there is no
allegation that more than three times amount of
interest being paid rather than the principal. The said
allegations are against other accused and not against
the present petitioner. Considering the aforesaid fact,
it is established that the present petitioner has not
entered in any transaction with the deceased in his
personal capacity. Whatever act done by the present
petitioner is in his official capacity being employee of
Shriram Transport Finance Company. It was the duty of
the petitioner as an employee of Shriram Transport
Finance Company to recover the dues and outstanding
amount of loan. Hence, the petitioner has acted in his
official capacity and question does not arise of any
mens rea. Even, petitioner did call prior to 16 days of
incident and there is neither any mens rea nor any
proximate cause to commit the suicide on the part of
the deceased. Even, considering the suicide note and
the allegations leveled in the suicide note also, except
above mentioned role, no any allegation leveled
against the present petitioner as petitioner has
performed his duty in his official capacity as a part of
his service conditions towards Shriram Transport
Finance Company and in his official capacity he had
made call to the deceased and after 16 days
unfortunate incident took place. Merely incident took
place and reference of loan being made in the suicide
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
note is not a ground to connect the petitioner accused
with the offence. No any allegations leveled in the
complaint which indicate the abetment on the part of
the present petitioner. Even, as per section 76, 79 and
80 of the IPC, act done by a person in his official
capacity or any incident takes place doing or
performing the lawful act, would not amount to an
offence.
[11.1] At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the
decision in the case of M. Vijayakumar vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in (2024)4 SCC 633, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where victim
borrower committed suicide, allegedly because of
being tormented by demand for repayment of the
loan, absence of the requisite ingredients of the
offence of abetment of suicide would result in
acquittal of the accused. It has been observed in the
said decision thus:
"Thus, while recording the conviction under
Section 306, the Courts have to consider the
mens rea of the accused to bring about suicide of
the victim which requires an active act or direct
act which led the victim to commit suicide seeing
no option. In other words, the act must have
been of such a degree intending to push the
deceased into such a position that he / she
committed suicide.
Mens rea is held to be a guilty mind and as a
general rule, every crime, requires a mental
element, the nature of which, will depend upon
definition of the particular crime in question.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
Thus, circumstance to determine the existence of
mens rea, depends upon the ingredients
constituting the particular offence and the
expression used in the definition of the particular
offence to constitute such offence."
[11.2] Further, the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused
and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that
of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behavior, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on
the actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased. If the persons who committed suicide had
been hypersensitive and the action of accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on
the allegation of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
the part of the accused, which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide. 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 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 I.P.C.
[11.3] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020)10 SCC
200 has held that, as in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under Section 107 of the IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or
show that the accused had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide
of the deceased.
[11.4] It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs.
State reported in (2023)15 SCC 560, wherein in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
paragraph 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
thus:
"45. ... 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."
[12.0] Insofar as the allegation of harassment by the
petitioner to the deceased leading the deceased to
commit suicide is concerned, it is submitted that mere
harassment, cannot be sufficient to hold an accused
guilty of abetting the commission of suicide, without
all the ingredients of section 306 of IPC being proved
by the prosecution. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State
of Haryana reported in (2024)3 SCC 573. In
paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said decision, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed and held as under:
"22. This Court in Kashibai vs. State of
Karnataka, observed that to bring the case
within the purview of "abetment" under Section
107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard
to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
on the part of the accused and for the purpose
proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also
there has to be an evidence with regard to the
positive act on the part of the accused to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
instigate or aid to drive a person to commit
suicide.
23. Had there been any clinching evidence
of incessant harassment on account of which
the wife was left with no other option but to
put an end to her life, it could have been said
that the accused intended the consequences
of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a
consequence when he (1)foresees that it will
happen if the given series of acts or
omissions continue, and (2)desires it to
happen. The most serious level of culpability,
justifying the most serious levels of
punishment, is achieved when both these
components are actually present in the
accused's mind (a "subjective" test)."
[13.0] In view of the above, no any offence is made out from
the bare perusal of the complaint and averments
made. Nonetheless, present petitioner serving as
Senior Branch Manager of Shriram Transport Finance
Co. Ltd. had made a call to the deceased requesting to
make the payment of loan amount which would not by
any stretch of imagination can be said to have
constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Considering the aforesaid fact, act on the part of the
petitioner to ask for payment of loan installment from
the deceased was nothing but an act as a part of his
official duty. Even, learned advocate for respondent
No.2 and learned APP both have relied on the suicide
note and stated that name of the present petitioner is
mentioned in the suicide note but it is needless to say
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
that mere mentioning of name in the suicide note is
not enough to attract the provision of section 306 of
the IPC. Abetment is important under section 107 of
the IPC. In the suicide note, except referring the name
of present petitioner, there is no reference of any act
or intent whereby the petitioner has caused willful act
or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased for
committing the act of suicide as he has only
performed his official duty. In the suicide note, other
allegations are leveled against other accused and not
against the petitioner. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Chandra
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in referring to paragraph 5 of the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 2 SCC
659] has observed as under:
"An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand
only if there is an abetment for the commission
of the crime. The parameters of the
"abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a
person abets the doing of a thing, who
instigates any person to do that thing; or
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, or the person
should have intentionally aided any act or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
illegal omission. The explanation to Section
107 says that any willful misrepresentation or
willful concealment of a material fact which he
is bound to disclose, may also come within the
contours of "abetment".
[14.0] At this stage, it would also be apposite to refer to the
decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L.
Muniswamy reported in (1977)2 SCC 699, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.7 has
observed thus:
"7. The wholesome power under Section 482
CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a
proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the Court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceeding ought
to be quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil and
criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public
purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. The Court observed
in this case that ends of justice are higher than
the ends of mere law though justice must be
administered according to laws made by the
legislature."
Considering the aforesaid fact, as the petitioner
has rendered his official and legal duty without there
being any circumstances to even remotely indicate
that there was any instigation on the part of the
petitioner to abet the commission of an offence and
much less in absence of any mens rea there was no any
such act or intention that the petitioner intended to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
bring about the suicide to deceased.
[14.1] It is necessary to consider whether the power
conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that
the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires
great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful
to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent power should
not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
High Court being the highest court of a State should
normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,
more so when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude
and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 and in case
of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set out the
categories of cases in which the inherent power under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para
102 as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though
it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised :
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22562/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2024
undefined
In view of above discussion, if the proceedings
impugned in the present petition are allowed to be
continued against the present petitioner, it would be
gross abuse of process of law and the Court as no
offence is made out or disclosed as mentioned in the
FIR as necessary ingredients of section 107 of the IPC
are not made out.
[14.2] Considering the aforesaid proposition in consonance
with the facts of the case on hand, to continue such
proceeding against the present petitioner would be
abuse of process of law and hence, present is a fit case
to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[15.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition is
allowed. Impugned FIR being CR No.11192035220126
of 2022 registered with Mandal Police Station,
Ahmedabad (Rural) alongwith all its consequential
proceedings is hereby quashed and set aside qua the
present petitioner only. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
