Gujarat High Court
Narendrasinh Samratbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20861 of 2017
==========================================================
NARENDRASINH SAMRATBHAI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BN LIMBACHIA(3454) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 04/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being
C.R.No.I - 49 of 2017 registered with Bopal 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 petitioner herein.
2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate Mr Dagli,
for the petitioner referring to the FIR in question would submit
that the minor dispute has entailed in major result of suicide by
the deceased. He would further submit that according to the FIR,
the complainant is in habit of playing gambling of Satta in the
market and ultimately, while doing so, he lost substantial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
amount and because of that, he has taken extreme step of
suicide. He would further submit that essential ingredients of
offence under section 306 of the IPC are completely missing in
the present case. He would for the submit that there is no
instigation, which lead the deceased to commit suicide.
3. To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dagli has
relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Pinkiben Soni
Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1790 of 2014, in case of Chimanlal Makwana Vs. State of
Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.2772 of
2010 and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Swamy
Prahladdas Vs. State of MP and others, 1995 Supplimentary (3)
SCC 438.
4. The above submission is made by learned advocate Mr
Dagli to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the complainant
would submit that since the petitioner 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 office, 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 request to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned APP, adopting the argument of learned advocate
for the private respondent, requests to pass necessary order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent as
well as learned APP would submit that the CD collected during
investigation recorded talks between the petitioner and the
deceased which indicates that the petitioner has threatened to
pay back the amount or to face dire consequences. In addition
thereto, learned APP would submit that the video spectrography
report matches the voice of the petitioner and therefore, prima
facie case is made out. Taking the submission as it is on its face
value, it appears that the talks between the petitioner and the
deceased happened at least 15 days prior to the incident and
therefore, it cannot be presumed that said talk between the
petitioner and the deceased prompted the deceased to commit
suicide. There is no proximate act established by way of FIR,
which indicates result of committing suicide by the deceased.
8. 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.
9. Be that as it may, since principal offence alleged against
the petitioner 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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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."
10. At this juncture, I may refer to decision in case of Mohit
Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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
person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with
one or more other person or persons in any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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."
11. Fruitful reference can also be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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."
12. 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 petitioner to instigate the deceased
which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. There are
various alternative left to the deceased for such a fact situation.
13. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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."
13.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 5
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
14. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20861/2017 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025
undefined
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.
15. In the result, present petition is allowed. Impugned FIR
being C.R.No.I - 49 of 2017 registered with Bopal Police Station
as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and
set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
16. As far as show cause notice issued by this Court upon the
investigating officer on 1.9.2025, learned APP would submit that
investigating officer Mr. JL Boricha, who has tendered report, is
feeling remorse and shall file necessary affidavit of unconditional
apology within 10 days from today. Considering the submission
of learned APP, while directing investigating officer Mr. JL
Boricha to file necessary affidavit of unconditional apology
within 10 days from today with the Registry of this Court, the
show cause notice issued for initiation of contempt proceedings
is discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
