Gujarat High Court

Mehulbhai Vasantbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.MA/5864/2020                                      CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                                                              Reserved On   : 15/07/2025
                                                                              Pronounced On : 25/07/2025

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                            FIR/ORDER) NO. 5864 of 2020


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No

                        ==========================================================
                                              MEHULBHAI VASANTBHAI JOSHI & ORS.
                                                           Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                        MR PRASHANT MANKAD(2189) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                        MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI


                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of this application 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.11188004200102 of 2020 registered with

Dhansura Police Station, Aravalli for the offences punishable

under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as all

other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR

qua the petitioner herein.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. It is case of prosecution that the complainant is brother of

deceased Rajubhai who has committed suicide on 16-03-2020.

As per say of the complainant, his brother committed suicide

and that time, he found a chit handwritten by the deceased

wherein he has stated that, before 3 years ago he had amount

from selling his agriculture land and other amount of agriculture

income of 18 years and amount of KCC (Krishi Crope Loan)

obtain from Bank, it had been given to Mehulbhai Joshi who is

running Devayat Finance ie. accused No.1.This amount was

around Rs. 42,00,000/-. It was given to Mehulbhai Joshi with

intent to carry interest upon said amount. When he had asked to

returned an amount, the accused No.1 told that, he has invested

in land and houses, adding interest to principal amount, total

amount would be around Rs. 72,00,000/-and if he want to take

back, then he has to come with two sureties. The deceased two

to three times reminded to returned back his amount, but same

was not returned back to him. That when the accused No. 1 has

not given his amount back, having been fed up, deceased has

committed suicide. It has also been stated in the chit of the

deceased that, accused who are partners have pressured him by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

not returning the amount and thereby, he committed suicide.

Hence, FIR is filed.

3. Thereafter petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

came to be filed to quash the FIR.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel for the applicants

submitted that accused Devayat Finance was started in the

month of October, 2019 and neither accused no.1 is partner nor

applicant nos.2 and 4. It is submitted that alleged transaction

took place before three years and therefore, Devayat Finance

cannot be held liable. It is stated that no such amount was

given by the deceased and no transaction was entered between

the deceased and accused. It is submitted that if there is

outstanding amount to be paid by the accused, then deceased

must be having some documents or any entry to that effect and

witness, however, same are missing in the suicide chit.

Therefore, it is submitted that chit itself is concocted and created

document. It is also submitted that in the chit on which date the

amount is given to the petitioners is not disclosed. It is also

submitted that deceased had made application to State Legal Aid

Committed from where notice was issued to the petitioners for

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

making their submission. Inspite of fact that he has made

application to authority about cheating, before reaching date of

hearing, he has committed suicide. It is submitted that except

applicant no.1, no one has any business relation with deceased

and they are falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that

there is no proximity of act prior to alleged incident which

promoted deceased to commit suicide.

4.1. It is submitted that on plain reading of FIR, it does not

disclose essential ingredients of section 107 of IPC which is

needed to put allegation of offence under section 306 of IPC. It is

submitted that contents of FIR are insufficient to make out

offence under section 306 of IPC.

4.2. In support of above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on following judgments :-

(a) Mahendra K.C. v/s. State of Karnataka [(2022) 2 SCC

(b) Nipun Aneja v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 INSC 767]

4.3. Making above submissions, learned advocate for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

petitioners submitted to allow the petition.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Mankad for respondent complainant

submitted that there is no denial to the fact that there was

financial transaction between accused and deceased. It is

submitted that since huge amount was not repaid by the

accused, deceased was in pressure and thereby committed

suicide. It is submitted that considering material on record,

prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners accused.

Therefore, it is submitted that the petition may be dismissed.

6. Learned APP for the respondent - State submitted that

monetary transaction took place between deceased and accused

and as accused did not return back the amount, it ignited

deceased to commit suicide. Learned APP also submitted that

specimen signature of deceased is verified and FSL report states

that suicide note is written by deceased and therefore, suicide

note cannot be doubted. It is submitted that since prima facie

material is found against the accused, this Court may not

exercise discretion in faovur of the petitioners to quash the FIR

in question.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

6.1. In support of above arguments, learned APP has relied on

following judgment :-

(a) Munshiram v/s. State of Rajasthan [2018 (5) SCC 678]

7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties

and examining records of the case, apt to note that in case of

A.K.Choudhary v/s. State of Gujarat [2005 (3) GLH 444], this

Court has observed as under :-

"1. Life is dear to everybody and death is painful to one and all. Should sentiments prevail or discipline for the administration of any institution ? Can sentiments be allowed to be enforced over rule of law ? Can the action or inaction or propriety of action or inaction to discharge legal obligation be said as an aid or instigation or abetment to commit suicide ? The aforesaid are the aspects which directly or indirectly arise for the consideration of this Court in the present group of petitions.

17. In view of the above, it appears that the ingredients for abetment for suicide would be satisfied only if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories, one normally

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

where the deceased is having sentimental tie or physical relations with the accused and second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in official capacity. In case of former category some times a normal quarrel or the utterance of hot exchange of words may result into psychological immediate imbalance. Consequently creating situation of depression, loss of charm in the life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would to discharge the obligation as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship and the reason being the different conduct of the parties for maintenance of the relations. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules and regulations. Of course, for meeting with the requirement for ingredients of abetment to suicide, the provisions of the IPC are the same, but for the purpose of examination on the aspects of abetment to commit suicide or incitement/encouragement to suicide, it may have some relevance. Since, in the present case this Court is not concerned with the matter of matter of abetment to suicide where the deceased or the accused had the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

relations covered in the first category, no further discussion may be required in this regard to that extent. However, in case where the allegations for abetment of suicide committed by the deceased falling in second category are concerned, the strict interpretation is called for, otherwise it may result into damaging the discipline of any institution or organization or department, which may consequently result into creating a situation against national interest for which the expectation would be the strict discipline and the rule of law only and nothing else."

8. In Sharad Birdhichand Sardav vs. State of Maharashtra

[1984 (4) SCC 116] on the psychological aspect of the suicide, it

has been observed in paragraph 8 as under:

"8. If the evidence is viewed keeping such law in mind, we do not see any person to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the State and upset the finding of the lower Court. Simply someone comes before the Court and says that both the spouses were often quarrelling is not sufficient because that would not clearly establish the knowledge or intention relation to the crime and proximate assistance. There may be difference of opinions. If on one or another issue the spouses are often quarrelling it is the usual wear and tear of the married life, and certainly that would not lead any one to end his/her life. One would bring end of his/her life if he/she is put to the compelling or alarming circumstances

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

with no opinion. The prosecution has, therefore, to show what was the apple of discord so as to determine about abetment. The case in general terms is not sufficient. (Emphasis supplied.) Here in this case, it is not made clear as to what was the subject of quarrels on the day of the incident, what was the issue, who initiated the quarrel, in what context both were quarrelling, and who was at fault for the quarrel. With regard to the past quarrels also it is ambiguously and in general terms alleged and stated that both were often quarreling, but it is not made clear in what context, and who was at fault? The party at fault if ultimately facing frustration of his/her plan goes to the extreme, i.e. Suicide the opposite party cannot be blamed and held liable. In different words, if extremity is one's own creation, and the opponent is blamed, it would amount to roguery supplants justice. (Emphasis supplied.) Nothing can be inferred or assumed for or against the party or the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that husband is always at fault, and wife is the victim of the wickedness of the husband. As made clear by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Niharbala Banerjee (supra), there is also no evidence about the knowledge and intention relating to the crime and proximate assistance. It is pertinent to note that the Calcutta High Court has held to which we agree that merely on the fact that the husband was not treating the Wife properly and was treating her with cruelty will not be sufficient to establish the abetment. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, even if on the basis of the evidence of the abovereferred witnesses it is assumed that respondent was often quarrelling with the deceased, that will not amount to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

abetment for committing suicide; it might be owing to abovequoted psychological factors and symptoms taking shape independent of abetment. (Emphasis supplied.)"

9. In the case of Ramesh Kumar v/s. State of Chhattisgarh

[(2001) 9 SCC 618], while examining different shades of the

meaning of "instigation", in Para 20, Hon'ble Apex Court held as

under :-

"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 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 appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."

10. In background of above binding precedent of law, I may

refer to section 107 of IPC, which reads as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

"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 doing of that thing or Thirdly -

Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

11. In order to prove offence under section 306 of IPC,

prosecution is required to establish the necessary ingredients of

section 107 of IPC which establishes abetment of things. If

person instigate a person to do anything, one or more than one

person conspire for doing particular thing to any person and if

any act or illegal omission takes place pursuant to such

conspiracy and thirdly, intentionally aid a person by an act or

illegal omission for doing that thing, then it can be said that

person has abetted of things. In order to establish offence under

section 306 of IPC, prosecution needs to prove instigation or

goading, intentionally aiding person to do any act or illegal

omission and also such act should be within the proximate of

committing suicide. Further prosecution is also required to

prove that there was active act or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

have been intended to push the deceased into such a position

that he committed suicide having no option.

12. In background of above, if the FIR is seen at its face value,

it reveals that deceased had given hefty amount to the accused

and accused did not pay back the same and therefore, he

committed suicide. Suicide note was found from the deceased

and it revealed name of the accused. It also appears that he was

under psychological pressure and therefore, committed suicide.

Learned APP submitted that suicide note has been verified and it

is found from FSL report that handwriting of the same matches

with the deceased and therefore, same cannot be doubted. It is

pertinent to note that complainant who is brother of the

deceased found suicide note from the body of deceased and at

that time, Investigating Officer of investigating agency was not

present. It is also not proved on what basis handwriting of

deceased on suicide note is matched, given by the complainant

to the investigating officer. On specific query raised to learned

APP that with which unquestioned material containing

handwriting of deceased, the suicide note or chit was verified,

learned APP could not answer the query or put any material with

which handwriting on suicide note was verified. It is also to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

noted that in the suicide note no specific details are given as to

date on which amount is given to the accused. Thus, taking the

FIR at its face value, no such ingredient as stated in section 107

of IPC is fulfilled to make out offence under section 306 of IPC.

Thus, judgments relied by learned APP would not help the

prosecution.

13. At this juncture, I may refer to decision in case of Mohit

Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered

in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in regards to allegation of committal of suicide for demanding

money and for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC following

view is taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Paragraph 7 to 10

reads thus:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

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)

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

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."

14. It also appears that petitioner nos.2 to 4 are not connected

with the offence. They have no business relation with deceased.

Except evidence of suicide note, there is no other direct or

indirect evidence which indicates involvement of the petitioners.

15. Recently, in case of R. Shashirekha vs State Of

Karnataka [2025 INSC 402] the Hon'ble Apex Court after

referring earlier decision in paragraph 13 has held thus:

"13. Assuming that the allegations are true, even otherwise, the case under Section 306 of IPC would not be made out. Recently, this Court in a case of Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another1 in which one of us (Gavai, J.)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

was a Member has considered all the earlier judgments with regard to Section 306 of IPC. After referring to the earlier judgments, this Court has observed thus:

"31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court, under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused- appellant. A factor that had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide.

32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February 2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.

................

34. .......The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

the act of suicide. As was held in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link between the two acts."

16. In case on hand, FIR and suicide note taken on its face value, at the most reveals financial transaction between parties (though it remained unverified) and non payment of money advanced by deceased. It also unravel that complaint was lodged to Legal Aid Clinic, Ahmedabad by deceased, however, without waiting for the out come of the complaint, deceased took extreme steps to die. It is unfortunate loss of human life but human mind is mystique and full of conundrum because it harbours immense complexity - capable of logic, emotion, creativity and self awareness, yet much of its functioning remains mysterious. despite advance in neuro science, how thoughts arise, consciousness work, or memory store still puzzles. Various alike reasons may lead to suicide, but they are proving inducement or pressure proving abatement of things.

17. 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 INSC 156, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

"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."

18. Apposite to refer the case of State of Haryana Vs.

B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, whereby, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

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) to 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 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. The FIR accepted in its entirety as correct do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out any case against the present

petitioner. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are so absurd and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/5864/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025

undefined

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 and the evidence collected in

support of the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out the case against the accused.

20. Resultantly, while applying finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court