Gujarat High Court
Anjanikumarsingh @ Munnasingh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14867 of 2018
==========================================================
ANJANIKUMARSINGH @ MUNNASINGH RAMSINGH RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set
aside FIR being I-C.R.No.229 of 2018 registered with Umra Police
Station, Surat for the offence under section 306, 507 and 114 of
Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased committed
suicide on account of frustration as well as pressure by accused
as case of the deceased was not being heard in timely manner by
the Court below with regard to Maintenance and Domestic
Violence Case. It is case of prosecution that accused threaten
deceased to withdraw the case and therefore, deceased
committed suicide. Hence, FIR is lodged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Ms.Prapti Kothari for learned advocate
Mr.Popat for the petitioner submits that petitioner is facing
charge under section 306, 504 and 114 of IPC. Having referred
to judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Misc.
Application No.14159 of 2018 for other accused viz.
Akhandbharat Kailashnaryan Singh and Madhuri Singh, learned
advocate Ms.Kothari submits that FIR if taken on its face value
along with suicide note, essential ingredients of section 107 of
IPC which is sine qua non for establishing offence under section
306 of IPC are missing. It is submitted that petitioner is distant
in law of deceased. He was not living with deceased. There is no
allegation levelled against the petitioner meting with cruelty etc.
She submitted that there is no averments made in the FIR which
establish instigation or goading at the behest of petitioner and at
the same time no essential ingredient are pleaded that deceased
had no option except to commit suicide. Therefore, it is
submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner.
Learned advocate Ms.Kothari would submit that in fact FIR
indicates that deceased was fed up with litigation which she had
filed under Domestic Violence Act, not getting adjudicated and
simultaneously appears to be fed up with constant harassment
made by near in laws for compromise to settle the dispute.
3.1. Mainly on above submission, it is submitted to allow the
petition and to quash and set aside impugned FIR.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the complainant referred to
suicide note and submitted that deceased jumped from Court
building at Surat. It is submitted that in suicide note, name of
the petitioner is mentioned as distant relative / Chacha Sasur
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
(page No.47). He would submit that marriage span of deceased
was less than 7 years and therefore, presumption under section
113A of the Evidence Act also applies. It is submitted that there
is sufficient material to conduct trial against the petitioner.
Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP for the respondent - State adopted the
arguments of learned advocate Mr.Dave and submitted to
dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides. I have
gone through contents of FIR and other documents annexed with
the petition. In suicide note though name of wife of accused -
Akhandbharat Singh is not specifically mentioned but it is
mentioned as wife of A.B.Singh. In Criminal Misc. Application
No.14159 of 2018, the Co-ordinate Bench while quashing FIR
qua petitioners of that petition has observed in para 8 and 9 as
under :-
"8. I have considered the rival submissions made by
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and
also perusal of the report received from the concerned
police station which is produced by the learned APP which
is taken on record. It transpires that the FIR is filed
registered with Umara Police Station, Dist. Surat for the
offence punishable under Sections 306, 507 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code dated 22.7.2018 by Bipinsingh
Lalchandrasingh Rajput who happens to the brother of the
deceased Simpisingh who committed suicide. It transpires
that the allegations against the present applicants are in
general in nature as present applicants admittedly not
near relatives of the husband or are related to the deceased
in any manner. Merely, present applicants are intervening
in some Court case which is arising out from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
matrimonial disputes pursuant to the earlier complaint
filed at Limbayat Police Station and they are insisting the
deceased as well as other persons for entering into the
settlement as agreed by the parties at the relevant point of
time. It also transpires from the perusal of the suicide note
which is produced by the learned APP for perusal of this
Court that the names of the present applicants are not
mentioned in the said suicide note. Moreover, considering
the fact that there is no instigation or abatement can be
considered on the part of the present applicants which is
necessary requirement under the law.
Section 107 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
which is read as under:-
"Section 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 thing;
or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
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.
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and in absence of specific role attributed to the
present applicants bearing role of the mediator in the some
Court proceedings, I am of the opinion that prima facie no
case is made out against the present applicants to proceed
further pursuant to the impugned complaint. Moreover
considering the recent judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Mohit Singhal and another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others reported in 2023 SCC Online Sc
1598 wherein, it is observed as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
"7. The suicide note records that the third respondent had
borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-. According to the deceased,
he had paid more than half of the amount to Sandeep. The
suicide note records that as he could not pay the rest of
the money, the first appellant came to his house and
started abusing him. He stated that the first appellant had
assaulted him, and therefore, he complained to the police.
He further noted that the business of giving money on
interest was prospering. He stated that the third
respondent is not a prudent woman, and due to her habit
of intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped in
this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that the first
appellant has made his life a hell.
8. According to the complaint of the third respondent, the
incident in her shop of the first appellant threatening and
assaulting her and her husband was on 15th June 2017.
After that, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by Sandeep to the
deceased on 27th June 2017. The suicide note was written
three days after that, on 30th June 2017. The deceased
committed suicide three days thereafter. Neither in the
complaint of the third respondent nor in the suicide note,
it is alleged that after 15th June 2017, the appellants or
Sandeep either met or spoke to the third respondent and
her deceased husband. Section 306 of the IPC makes
abetment to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 of
the IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing, reads thus:
"Section 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 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." (underline supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section
107, will have no application. Hence, the question is
whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to
cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, 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.
10. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third
respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct,
it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated
the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment
of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her
husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him
by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly
happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide.
There is no allegation that any act was done by the
appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By
no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the
appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide.
The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing
in trouble due to her bad habits.
11. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their
prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of
law."
7. In order to prove offence under section 306 of IPC,
prosecution is required to show that there is instigation on the
part of the accused. Abatement as stated in section 107 has to
be proved. Prima facie, prosecution is required to prove that
instigation on the part of the accused, led deceased to commit
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
suicide and had no other alternative left except to commit
suicide.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v State of
Chhattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618 has defined the word instigation
as under :
"Instigation is to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act" To satisfy the requirement of
"instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes
"instigation" must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty
to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by
a continued course of conduct. created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide, in which case, an
"instigation" may have to be in- ferred. A word uttered in a
fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation."
9. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or
urging forward. The dictionary meaning of the word "goad"
is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to
action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary);
"to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts"
(see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade
somebody to do something or to make a person to move
more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by
pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who
instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter
with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
9. It is disturbing picture that deceased has filed proceedings
under Domestic Violence Act on 19.12.2017 and same is
summary proceedings. Deceased committed suicide on
21.07.2018, although one and half years passed, she did not get
any decision in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act.
FIR as well as suicide note if taken on its face value indicates
that she was disturbed that proceedings under Domestic
Violence Act was going on at snail pace. According to FIR, there
was harassment from the nearby in law to compromise the
dispute.
10. Useful reference can be made from the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. Versus State Of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2025] . The Hon'ble
Apex Court in para 18 to 20 has held as under :-
"18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another,
(1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the
deceased that go and die and the deceased thereafter
committed suicide. This Court held that :-
Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow
thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite
means rea on the assumption that these words
would be carried out in all events.
19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated
that in order to make out an offence under Section 306
IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC
on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about
the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that
abetment is required. It has been further held that the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section
306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged
harassment meted out should have left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in
cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct
or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010)
1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618].
20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this
Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76."
11. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
in absence of material ingredients of section 107 of IPC which is
essential to establish offence under section 306 of IPC, present
petitioners cannot be charged for the offence under section 306
of IPC. It is unfortunate that lady at young age has lost life, but
in absence of essential ingredient, the petitioner cannot be
charged for the offence under section 306 and 507 of IPC.
12. This Court may gainfully refer to the following observations
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], and the law laid down
therein has been consistently followed. In para 102, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held 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 Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
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.
(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 Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 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
Section 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14867/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
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."
13. Sub-para (5) and (7) of the aforesaid judgment applies to
the present case.
14. In view of above, this is fit case where this Court should
exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioners.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being
CR.No.I-229 of 2018 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat
filed against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of said FIR are
also quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
