Gujarat High Court
Manharben Manilal Tandel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12566 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12568 of 2015
==========================================================
MANHARBEN MANILAL TANDEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MANAN V PATEL(8059) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this applications 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 - 92 of 2015 registered with Khatodara
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.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3. It is alleged in the FIR that Daughter of the First
Informant who was studying in the 2nd Year, B.Sc. Nursing at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
New Civil Hospital, Surat and was residing at Girls Hostel, Civil
Hospital, Surat committed suicide by handing herself with the
Fan of her Hostel Room because of the mental torture given by
the Applicants who are allegedly respectively Principal, Vice-
Principal and Accused No. 3 who is serving as Head Nurse,
MICU Ward, Civil Hospital, Surat by leaving behind suicide note
which is reproduced in the FIR in detail.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners referring to the FIR in
question would submit that there is three days' delay in filing the
FIR, which itself is suggestive of the fact that initiation of the
present criminal proceedings is nothing but afterthought and
abuse of process of law. He would further submit that according
to the FIR, no ingredients of offences u/s 107 and 306 of the IPC
are made out. He would further submit that from the FIR, no
positive action from the petitioners is found, which prompted the
deceased to commit suicide.
5. The above submission is made by learned advocate for the
petitioners to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the complainant
would submit that since the petitioners has approached this
court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
to quash the FIR at threshold, in absence of the investigation in
regards to the offence, it cannot be said that there is no
instigation which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. He
would further submit that the police has not formed any opinion
whether the offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out or
not. Upon such submission, he requests to dismiss the petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
7. Learned APP, adopting the argument of learned advocate
Mr Dave, requests to pass necessary order.
8. What could be noticed from the suicide note that the
deceased was studying in the 2nd Year, B.Sc. Nursing at New
Civil Hospital, Surat and was residing at Girls Hostel, Civil
Hospital, Surat, whereas the petitioners are serving as Principal
and Lecturer, Class II respectively at Nursing college. It is
further noticed that the deceased was not happy with the field.
It is further alleged that the petitioners are very strict in
implementation of rules and they used to reject leave and if leave
is granted, they take three times more work from the students,
which by itself is not sufficient to constitute alleged offence.
Considering the said fact, there cannot be any instigation or any
positive act at the hands of the petitioners, which would drive
the deceased to commit the suicide.
9. 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.
10. Be that as it may, since principal offence 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
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,
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
11. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
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.
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."
12. Fruitful reference can also be made to the judgment of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
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."
13. On going through the FIR, learned advocate for the first
informant as well as learned APP failed to establish single
positive act on the pact of the petitioners to instigate the
deceased which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. It is
a simple case where the deceased was not happy with the field,
which she has opted, which cannot be considered as instigation
for commitment of the suicide. There are various alternative left
to the deceased for such a fact situation.
14. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
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 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."
14.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 5
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12566/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
15. 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.
16. In the result, present petitions are allowed. Impugned FIR
being C.R.No.I - 92 of 2015 registered with Khatodara Station 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
