Gujarat High Court
Parulben Devpari Goswami vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8117 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PARULBEN DEVPARI GOSWAMI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
being C.R.No.I - 29 of 2017 registered with Junagadh "A"
Division Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners
herein.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts of the case as observed from the pleadings are
as under:-
2.1 An FIR is lodged by respondent No.2- original complainant
with the case that any time before 02.02.2017, an FIR is lodged
by the respondent No.2 original complainant who happens to be
the father of the deceased in short, with a case that original
accused No.1, who happens to be the wife of the deceased and
the petitioners are the near relatives were instrumental in
causing torture to his son under two pretexts, firstly, the
accused persons after the marriage of the deceased with original
accused No.1, they have pressurized the deceased to leave her
parents and join them in their house and stay with them,
secondly, since deceased had, out of his wedlock, a son, accused
persons were not permitting the deceased to meet his own son,
during his marital span of two years. In short, the FIR is lodged
with a case that on account of such constant and consistent
torture caused to the deceased for leaving his parents and not
letting him meet his own son, it so happened that on an
unfaithful day, i.e., on 02.02.2017, the date of incident,
deceased who was serving as an Armed Constable at Junagadh,
he committed suicide in the guesthouse of P.T.C., Junagadh by
hanging himself inside such place, for which 306, 114 of Indian
Penal Code offences are lodged in all against six of the accused
persons, out of which, original accused Nos.2 to 6 are before this
Honourable Court in capacity of relatives of wife of the deceased.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot would mainly submit
that the incident took place on 2.2.2017, but the FIR has been
lodged on 9.3.2017, after giving a well thought to the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
incident. He would further submit that the FIR is delayed by one
and half months, which is registered for the offences punishable
under sections 306 and 114 of the IPC. He would further submit
that the FIR is a well designed FIR and filed to rope the present
petitioners who have not played any active or passive role in
commission of the alleged offence. Taking this court through the
contents of the FIR, learned advocate Mr Barot would submit
that it is mainly alleged in the FIR that the deceased husband
was instigated by his wife or her relatives for living separately
from his parents, and such kind of allegations are persistently
written in the entire FIR. He would further submit that along
with the allegation of living separately from the parents, it is
further alleged that the deceased was pressurized to live as
resident son-in-law and to give ₹10,00,00 towards giving divorce.10,00,00 towards giving divorce.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Barot would further submit that the
present petitioners are the relatives of accused No.1 Divya. He
would further submit that no specific incidents are stated in the
FIR, which indicates that the present petitioners have ever
resided in common roof or they were living together at any point
of time, which may meet with the allegation of instigation meted
out to the deceased, which is necessary for committing suicide.
He would further submit that if the FIR is taken on its face
value, it shows that accused No.1 and her relatives are forcing
the deceased to live separately and to reside as resident son-in-
law. He would further submit that these allegations are not of
such nature that it is prime approved the ingredients of section
107 of the IPC. He would further submit that though the
contents and allegations levelled in the FIR that demand of
₹10,00,00 towards giving divorce.10,00,00 was made from the deceased, no purpose for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
pocketing such amount has been stated in the FIR, which made
such allegations even at prima facie hallow. In nutshell , learned
advocate, Mr Barot would submit that the FIR taking on its
entirety, does not disclose offences alleged in it. Even no active
or passive role of the petitioners are stated in the FIR, which led
the deceased to commit suicide.
3.2 In furtherance of above arguments, learned advocate, Mr
Barot referred to Annexure B and submit that the deceased
wrote a suicide note and stated that no one is responsible for his
act of committing suicide. He would further submit that since
necessary ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide is missing
in the present matter, allowing the FIR to proceed further
against the petitioners would be absurdity.
3.3 To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Barot
has relied upon following judgments:-
(1) Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2025 SC 568
(2) Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC
(3) Thakore Nitaben W/o Rameshji Prahladji Vs. State of
Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No.11951 of 2016
3.4 Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Barot prays
to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the
impugned FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
appearing for the first informant having referred to the contents
of the FIR would submit that on plain reading of the FIR
indicates that the deceased was continuously in his mental
stress throughout his married life. What could be culled out
from reading the FIR that since accused Divya - wife of the
deceased and her relatives were constantly harassing the
deceased mentally for leaving his parents and to become resident
son-in-law and they were demanding Rs.10 lakh, the deceased
was fed up from the life and committed suicide. He would
further submit that from reading of the FIR, it indicates that
there was instigation, pressure and demand. He would further
submit that planning of not permitting the deceased to have
access to his son is visible from the FIR and therefore, looking to
this constant humiliation, harassment at the behest of the
accused Divya and her relatives conjures with the entire facts of
the case, investigation of the case is required. He would further
submit that therefore, the FIR could not be scuttled at the
threshold. He also referred the contents of the FIR, wherein the
first informant has submitted diary written by the deceased and
it could be considered as dying declaration of the deceased,
which indicates that the deceased while was alive, also narrated
how he was fed up with constant harassment made to him at the
hands of the accused No.1 and her relatives, which led him to
commit extreme steps of suicide. He would further submit that
where sufficient instigation was there or not is a subject matter
of the investigation of the trial and therefore, the FIR cannot be
put to rest at the threshold on the submission that essential
ingredients of instigation are missing.
4.1 To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Jasani
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
has relied upon following judgments:-
(1) Bharatbhai P. Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat, 2018(1)
GLR 55
(2) Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,
(2018) 5 SCC 678
(3) Thakore Nitaben W/o Rameshji Prahladji Vs. State of
Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No.11951 of 2016
4.2 Upon above submission, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP taking this Court to the investigation carried
out in the offence would submit to pass necessary orders.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and on
perusal of the papers, what could be noticed that the FIR has
been lodged against the accused wife and her relatives alleging
that because of harassment and instigation, the husband has
committed suicide. The FIR is lodged on 9.3.2017. Since the
FIR is lodged after one and half months, it is required to be
looked closely. Looking to the face and tenure of the FIR, this
Court would like to observe something important. The FIR is
well drafted and after applying thoughtful consideration. The FIR
deserves to be read with more closely. The FIR filed belatedly i.e.
after one and half months from the date of the incident.
Therefore, whether the FIR is filed with an ulterior motive for
wrecking the vengeance or not is to be seen. Since the FIR is
filed one and half months late coupled with the averment that
the diary written by the deceased should be treated as dying
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
declaration u/s 32 of the Evidence Act, it appears that the FIR is
well drafted with all necessary pleadings with a view to disclose
that all essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
made out.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahmood Ali And
Others Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, 2023 (15)
SCC 488, in para 11 and 12, held as under:-
"11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the
face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this
stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this
Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . The
parameters are:-
"(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 non-cognizable 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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."
We are of the view that the case of the present
appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7
resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the
Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in
the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course
of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out
of private or personal grudge as alleged."
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga
Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this
Court elaborated on the types of materials the High
Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a
fine distinction between consideration of materials that
were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such
evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to
prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for
quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
"5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
the process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance
of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239 , this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.
869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report
or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where there
is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function
of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not
be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious
in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the same time the
section is not an instrument handed over to an accused
to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its
sudden death....................." (Emphasis supplied)"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
8. At this juncture, this Court may observe that it is not
somewhere unusual case where for the suicidal death of the
husband, wife and her relatives have been arrested as accused
for abetment of the things on the allegation that wife and her
relatives were constantly pressurizing the deceased, who was
serving in the SRP group 11 at various places in the State of
Gujarat, to live separately from her parents and to live as
resident son-in-law so also allegation of demanding Rs.10 lakh
from the deceased to give divorce. All ingredients if we read
subsequent or in conjunctures with each other, they are adhered
to each other. This is a case where the FIR is filed after one and
half months of the incident, where the complainant has all time
to plan and draft the FIR.
9. Be that as it may, since principal ofrfence alleged against
the petitioners is u/s 306 of the IPC, let refer sections 107 and
306 of the IPC.
"SECTION 107 : Abetment of a thing
BNS, 2023 (New Section): 45 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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 there by 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.
SECTION 306 : Abetment of suicide
BNS, 2023 (New Section): 108
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."
10. The main factor for abetment of thing is that the
prosecution needed to prove to instigates any person to do
particular thing, omission or illegal omission for doing that
thing. In the present case, this Court does not find any essential
ingredients of section 107 of the IPC, which can even prima facie
be proved on reading the FIR.
11. In Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in
para 21 held as under:-
"21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any
person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus
between the two, abetment being the propelling
causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision
are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To
constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of
the accused to aid or instigate the commission of
suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any
of this constituents would militate against this
indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or
omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to
actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the
offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive
mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity,
culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained
incitement for suicide."
12. The suicide note, which is produced by the petitioners
along with the petition at Annexure B and affirmed by learned
APP and gathered by the investigating officer during the
investigation, reads thus:-
"I am taking this step consciously. I am fed up of my
life. I hate my life. I am not fond of living anymore. I
don't blame anybody. I am taking this step myself.
Please don't blame anybody for this. Forgive me."
13. The suicide note, which is also in form of diary alleged to
have written by the deceased, is a part of the investigation
papers, which runs into pages, but, on perusal of the same, it
does not mention the names of the petitioners.
14. From the above circumstances, perusing the suicide note
of the deceased, nowhere it is the case that because of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
petitioners, the deceased was facing mental stress, which led
him with no other option, but to commit suicide.
15. At this juncture, I may refer to the recent judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mahendra Awase (supra), after
reviewing series of judgments, in para 16 to 20 observed thus:-
"16. 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 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9
SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar
has examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p.
629)
20. 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. The present one is not a case 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence and
material available on record wherefrom an
inference of the appellantaccused having abetted
commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's
wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court are clear that
in order to convict a person under Section 306
IPC 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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.
[Emphasis supplied]
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should
have created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of
anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
present case, we are convinced that there are no
grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the
prosecutions case on a demurrer and at its highest. A
reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant
was asking the deceased to repay the loan
guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh
Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
the behest of his employer can be said to have
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally
so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it
could not be said that the appellant intended to
instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly
not be said that the appellant by his acts created
circumstances which left the deceased with no other
option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the
armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the
deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave
the deceased with no other option but to commit
suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the
situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been
lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated
by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read
with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have
followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears
to be casually and too readily resorted to by the
police. While the persons involved in genuine cases
where the threshold is met should not be spared, the
provision should not be deployed against individuals,
only to assuage the immediate feelings of the
distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the
proposed accused and the deceased, their
interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be
approached from a practical point of view and not
divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles
employed in exchanges should not, without anything
more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide.
It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to
the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so
that persons are not subjected to the abuse of
process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial
courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if
the investigating agencies in a given case have shown
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
16. Fruitful reference can also be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus
State Of Karnataka, 2024 (0) AIR(SC) 1283, after reviewing series
of judgments on the subject matter while summing up,
concluded thus:-
"47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh
impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind.
There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to
commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case
of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive
environment in college or hostel, particularly for
students belonging to the marginalized sections,
joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in
love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression,
so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the
case that someone has to abet commission of suicide.
Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he
finds himself are relevant."
17. Now, coming back to the case on hand, it is true that the
deceased has lost his life by committing suicide leaving behind
his minor son. But, for such incident, without proving the
essential ingredients, the petitioners could not be held
responsible.
18. In absence of essential ingredients for the offence u/s 306
of the IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing
the FIR to proceed further against the petitioners would be
absurdity.
19. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the
proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same donot disclose the commission of any
offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the
institution 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 malafide and/or where the proceeding is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8117/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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."
19.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
20. Considering the observations made herein above, the
authorities cited by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani would
render no help to him, as the facts of that cases are not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
21. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and
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, power should be exercised.
Upshot of the above discussion, present petition deserves
consideration.
22. In the result, present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR
being C.R.No.I - 29 of 2017 registered with Junagadh "A"
Division Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners
herein are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
