Gujarat High Court

Shapoorji Pallonji And Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/14387/2018                              ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                          FIR/ORDER) NO. 14387 of 2018

                       ==========================================================
                        SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND CO. PVT. LTD. THROUGH DHRUV SHARMA
                                                   Versus
                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s)
                       No. 2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 15/04/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the

First Information Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No.I-CR No.32 of 2018

registered with Vadodara Taluka Police Station for offenses

punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (IPC), insofar as it pertains to the applicant company, along

with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. The complainant, widow of the deceased Alpeshbhai

Vinubhai Thakkar, alleges that the deceased, a contractor operating

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

through his concern Sahyog Infrastructure, had been engaged in

construction work for the last 11 years. He had worked with

accused nos. 1 to 9, including the applicant company, at various

sites.

2.1. It is alleged that accused nos. 1 to 9 were indebted to the

deceased, with accused no. 1, Casata Hometech, owing Rs.4.5

crores. One month prior to the FIR, the deceased approached

accused no. 1 for payment, but was told that his bills were false,

that accused no. 1 had paid Rs.10 crores in excess, and that the

deceased would not receive "a single penny" and could "go and

die." The deceased also approached other builders but failed to

recover any dues.

2.2. The deceased faced financial distress, exacerbated by a loan

from accused no. 12, who allegedly pressured him to repay and

forced him to surrender a Volkswagen car. The applicant company

is alleged to owe Rs.21,32,988.22 to the deceased.

2.3 The complainant alleges that the cumulative financial

pressure from accused nos. 1 to 9, 10, 11, and 12 led the deceased

to commit suicide. The FIR was registered under Sections 306

(abetment of suicide) and 114 (abettor present) of the IPC. Hence,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT:-

3. The applicant contends that the FIR and related proceedings

are an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed. Even if

the allegations are taken at face value, they do not disclose an

offense under Sections 306 and 114 IPC, as there is no evidence of

instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding.

3.1. It is submitted that the presence of mens rea is a necessary

ingredient for an offense under Section 306 read with Section 107

IPC. The applicant submits that there is no allegation of willful

instigation or abetment by the applicant company.

3.2. It is submitted that there is no proximate cause linking the

applicant's actions to the deceased's suicide.

3.3. The applicant relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision

in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009)

16 SCC 605, which holds that abetment under Section 306 requires

direct instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, with mens rea to

provoke the suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

3.4. The applicant further takes aid of following judgments of this

Court passed in same FIR, to contend that co-accused placed on

same footing and facing identical allegation, the FIR qua them have

been quashed:- (i) Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat,

Criminal Misc. Application No. 22198 of 2018. (ii) Dilipbhai

Devjibhai Trambadia v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal

Application No. 6037 of 2018. (iii) Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi v.

State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 13010 of 2018.

3.5. It is submitted that these judgments hold that financial

disputes or non-payment of dues, without direct instigation, do not

constitute abetment of suicide thus it is prayed to quash the

impugned FIR.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

4. The learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, appearing for the

respondent-State, submits that the FIR discloses a cognizable

offense, as the financial distress caused by the non-payment of dues

by multiple accused, including the applicant, contributed to the

deceased's suicide.

4.1. It is submitted that the applicant's failure to pay

Rs.21,32,988.22, combined with the actions of other accused,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

created circumstances that left the deceased with no option but to

take his life.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-

5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties

and perused the material available on record.

5.1. The allegations levelled against the applicant company, even

if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the essential

ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code. There is a complete absence of any material

suggesting instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding on the part

of the applicant. Furthermore, no mens rea can be discerned from

the facts of the case that would establish a deliberate or willful act

on the part of the applicant to provoke the deceased into

committing suicide.

5.2. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of

"company" as provided under Section 2(20) of the Companies Act,

2013, which reads as under:

"Company" means a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

5.3. The applicant, being a juristic entity, cannot by itself exert

psychological pressure or any personal influence to abet the

commission of suicide. In fact, a notable peculiarity of the present

case is that only the company has been arrayed as an accused, and

not any individual officer or representative thereof. In the absence

of a physical or sentient agent, the very foundation of the allegation

stands on untenable ground.

5.4. The alleged outstanding liability of Rs. 21,32,988.22, without

any specific allegations of harassment, coercion, or other overt acts

amounting to provocation, cannot by itself constitute "abetment"

within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. This legal position is well

settled and finds support in the decisions rendered for same FIR in

Ramesh Babubhai Patel (supra), Dilipbhai Devjibhai Trambadia

(supra), and Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi (supra).

5.5. Additionally, the invocation of Section 114 IPC is wholly

misconceived and unsustainable in the present context, as the

applicant company was neither present at the scene of occurrence

nor can it be attributed with any active role in the alleged suicide.

5.6. The FIR, therefore, does not disclose the commission of any

cognizable offence against the applicant company. The continuation

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

of the criminal proceedings in such a scenario would be nothing

but an abuse of the process of law.

5.7. It is also pertinent to note that, in compliance with the interim

order dated 09.08.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. 14387 of 2018, the applicant company had

deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court. In

view of the quashing of the FIR, the said amount, along with

accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant company

upon due verification by the Registry.

5.8. Accordingly, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

6. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], it is apparent that continuation

of the proceedings against the petitioner would be manifestly

unjust, amounting to an abuse of process of law. The impugned FIR

appears to be malicious and vexatious, filed with an oblique and

ulterior motive. Relevant para is as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

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.

(1) Where 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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14387/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025

undefined

(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."

CONCLUSION:-

7. In view of the above discussion, the FIR and consequential

proceedings, insofar as they pertain to the applicant company, are

liable to be quashed. The allegations do not satisfy the legal

requirements of Sections 306 and 114 IPC, and the cited judgments

support the applicant's case. This Court, exercising its inherent

powers under Section 482 CrPC, finds it just and proper to allow the

petition to prevent miscarriage of justice.

ORDER:-