[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Rameshbhai Ajmalbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/23528/2025                              ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 23528 of 2025
                       ==========================================================
                                                  RAMESHBHAI AJMALBHAI VAGHELA
                                                              Versus
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS KRINA P.CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

                                                         Date : 02/12/2025
                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. By way of preferring the present application under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the

present applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers

of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First

Information Report No.11189006250942 of 2025 lodged before

the Tankara Police Station, District Morbi, for the offences

punishable under Sections 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

2. Initially the present application was filed for consent

quashing, however, considering the gravity and seriousness of

the offence, the matter has been heard on merits.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

3. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla

waives service of notice of rule for and behalf of the respondent -

State.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Munjal Acharya appearing for

the applicant-accused and learned APP Ms.Krina Calla

appearing for the respondent - State.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Munjal Acharya has submitted that

the FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there

is not an iota of evidence to implicate the applicant-accused with

the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to

what had happened soon before the incident. Learned advocate

has further submitted that the proximity between the alleged act

of instigation by the applicant-accused and the commission of

suicide by the deceased has not been proved. He has further

submitted that except the statement of the complainant, there is

no other evidence to connect the present applicant with the

alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has

made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

applicant-accused, and the FIR, even if it is considered at its face

value, the same could not even establish the offence as alleged in

the FIR.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Acharya has, therefore, urged that

considering the above, the application may be allowed and the

impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside.

7. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the

respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present

application and has submitted that having regard to the

gravamen and seriousness of the offence, the application may

not be entertained and the same may be rejected.

8. From the bare perusal of the complaint as well as the

report of the Investigating Officer, it appears that the present

applicant-accused and the deceased (i.e. the applicant's wife)

were residing together in a hut in the agricultural field.

Furthermore, it appears from the report of the Investigating

Officer that since no one was residing surrounding the field,

except the statements of the relatives, no other evidence of the

neighbours could be obtained. It is alleged that due to the

torture by the applicant-accused, the deceased had committed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

suicide. It reveals that immediately after the occurrence, the

deceased was taken to a temple and thereafter she was taken to

a hospital, where she was declared dead. Furthermore, it

appears that on the strength of the complaint filed by the father

of the deceased, the investigation was carried out, and during

the course of the inquiry, the police had recorded the statement

of the complainant as well as his family members, who were

admittedly not present at the place where the incident had

occurred. Admittedly, the suicide note is not on record.

9. It is settled that to attract Section 107 of the IPC, the

accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit

suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is

intended to push the deceased to such a position under which

he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation

must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. In

the present case, it appears from the materials on record that

there is no suicide note by the deceased, and further there is no

evidence on record to suggest as to what had happened soon

before the incident. Even after perusing the impugned FIR, this

Court does not find that the essential ingredients of Section 107

of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

10. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme

Court in case of Shenbagavalli and others vs. Inspector of

Police, Kancheepuram District and another, reported in 2025

INSC 607, wherein the Supreme Court held as under :-

"15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. [M.Arjunan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315]

16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others vs.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 it has been observed in para 16 as follows :-

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of 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.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the 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. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. 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 behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.

17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide, and the said ingredients having not been fulfilled, the further continuation of proceedings would not be sustainable. The other evidence such as statements, sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apart from the suicide note, does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution, particularly when the foundation of the case is the suicide note itself. With the very element of abetment conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR which is primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential requirements for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC remain unfulfilled. As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of harassment or unjust prosecution.

18. The Court would not hesitate to exercise its extraordinary powers which are inherent to quash such proceedings when it comes to fore, and the court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of Court or that the ends of the justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment of this Court in Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/23528/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025

undefined

11. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the power

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is

extraordinary power, and it should be used sparingly, as the

exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold.

But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the

offence, the power should be exercised. Upshot of the above

discussion, the present petition deserves consideration.

12. In the result, the present application is allowed. The First

Information Report No.11189006250942 of 2025 lodged before