Jayrambhai Ramdularibhai Maurya vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 7701 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Jayrambhai Ramdularibhai Maurya vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/SCR.A/8941/2025                                ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8941 of 2025

                     ==========================================================
                                     JAYRAMBHAI RAMDULARIBHAI MAURYA & ORS.
                                                     Versus
                                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                     JIGER K MEHTA(7548) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                     MR HIMANSHU K PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                                        Date : 06/11/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

"a. The Hon'ble Court may be please to admit this Special Criminal Application. b. This Hon'ble Court may be please to allow this Special Criminal Application by quashing and setting aside the F.I.R which is registered against the petitioners herein with Himmat Nagar B Division Police Station, Himmat Nagar being F.I.R. 11209056250482 of 2025 dt. 19.05.2025, for the offence under Sections 108,351(3), 54 of B.N.S at Annexure- A and further proceedings initiated, in the interest of justice.

c. Pending admission and final disposal of the present application, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as to execution, implementation and further operation of F.I.R

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

which is registered against the petitioners herein with Himmat Nagar B Division Police Station, Himmat Nagar being F.I.R. 11209056250482 of 2025 dt. 19.05.2025, for the offence under Sections 108,351(3), 54 of B.N.S, at Annexure- A, in the interest of justice."

2. As per the facts and circumstances, the petitioners herein are the accused in the FIR in question registered for offence punishable under Section 108, 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners herein happen to be the father, the brother and the sister-in-law of the deceased respectively. The deceased had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged by the wife of the deceased against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

3. Learned advocate Shri Ashish Dagli appearing for the petitioners submitted that after the deceased having committed suicide, an Accidental Death Inquiry was carried out by the police officials. During the course of the said inquiry, the statement of the first informant was also recorded wherein she has categorically stated that the deceased had consumed the sulphate tablets through inadvertence in place of his regular medicines. Thereafter, the first informer went to Uttar Pradesh at her parental house and thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged by her. There is a gross delay in lodging the present FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained by the first informant. He further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the petitioners herein had not provided any share in the property to the deceased and therefore he was constrained to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

commit suicide. In fact, the properties of the petitioners as well as the deceased were partitioned in the year 2017 and the share of the deceased was already given to him in the year 2017 itself. Therefore, there was no question of providing any share in the property to the deceased. The deceased was in fact suffering from some mental ailment and was also prescribed medicines in that regard. He further submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS are not made out against the petitioners as they had never instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the FIR registered against the petitioners. Learned advocate has sought to rely upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohit Singhal and Another Versus the State of Uttarakhand and Others in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 in support of his submissions.

4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending that prior to committing suicide, the deceased had written a suicide note wherein he had categorically stated that he was committing suicide because of the mental torture meted out to him by the present petitioners. He submitted that the deceased has categorically written in the suicide note that he was not given his due share in the property by the petitioners. Moreover, the brother of the deceased i.e. Petitioner No.02 had obtained some loan in the name of the deceased for the business purposes and the installments of loan were required to be paid by the deceased and because of the same, the deceased was facing acute financial crisis and therefore, he was constrained to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

commit suicide. The suicide note was sent to FSL for examination of the handwritings of the deceased and the handwritings of the suicide note have matched with the natural handwritings of the deceased. Therefore, there was no question of the suicide note being concocted. He further submitted that when the statement of the First Informant came to be recorded during the course of Accidental Death Inquiry, she was living with the present petitioners and therefore, she could not narrate the correct facts before the police authorities. It was only after she went to her parental house that she had gathered the courage for lodging the present FIR. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has thus been explained satisfactorily. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition.

5. Learned advocate Shri. Jigar K. Mehta appearing for the Original Complainant submitted that the petitioners and the deceased were jointly holding some property. The deceased was clandestinely made to sign the agreement with regard to partition of the property. However, no actual share in the property was ever given to the deceased by the petitioners. He further submitted that when the inquiry into the accidental death of the deceased was undertaken, the First Informant was under the influence of the petitioners' herein and therefore, she could not narrate the correct facts before the police authorities. Moreover, the First Informant is not conversant with the Gujarati language and therefore she could not understand what was written by the police authorities in a statement recorded on 22.11.2024. He further submitted that it was only because of the acts alleged on the part of the petitioners that the deceased was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

constrained to commit suicide and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS is clearly made out against all the petitioners. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. From the material available on record, it appears that the deceased had committed suicide on 22.11.2024 by consuming a poisonous substance. He was immediately taken to the hospital after consumption of the substance in question where he had died. After his death, an inquiry into his accidental death was carried out by the police authorities. During the course of the said inquiry, the statement of the First Informant who happens to be the wife of the deceased came to be recorded on 22.11.2024 itself. In the said statement, she has categorically stated that the deceased had consumed the sulphate tablet through inadvertence in place of his regular medicines. After carrying out the necessary inquiry into the accidental death, the police authorities had submitted the Closure Report in view of the aforesaid statement made by the First Informant. Thereafter, the First Informant went to Uttar Pradesh to her parental house and thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged by the First Informant on 19.05.2025. It is stated in the FIR by the First Informant that she came across the suicide note written by the deceased after she reached her parental house. Upon perusal of the material available on the record, it appears that the suicide note in question was recovered from a notebook. The said notebook had been carried by the First Informant when she left for her parental house at Uttar Pradesh. The suicide note in question is dated 13.09.2024

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

whereas the deceased had committed suicide on 22.11.2024 i.e. after a period of more than 2 months from the date of suicide note. Moreover, the said suicide note was very much available with the First Informant when she went to her parental house. Despite this, there is absolute silence on the part of the First Informant till the date she gave an application before Saini Police Station at Uttar Pradesh. It has also come to notice of this Court that some relative of the First Informant is working in the Police Department at Uttar Pradesh.

7. The present FIR has been lodged by the First Informant against three accused i.e. the father, the brother and the sister- in-law of the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that the petitioners herein had usurped the share of the deceased in the property. It is also alleged that petitioner No.02 had obtained loan in the name of the deceased for business purposes and the said loan was required to be repaid by the deceased and because of the same, the deceased was facing acute financial crunch. Accepting the allegations levelled in the FIR at their face value, it can be said that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 may have deprived the deceased of his share in the property. However, there is no allegation whatsoever against petitioner No.03 who happens to be the sister-in-law of the deceased and she has been arraigned as an accused in the present case without any specific allegations which indicates that the present affair has been lodged with some ulterior motive.

8. Even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are assumed to be correct, merely because the petitioners herein have not given the deceased his share in the property or because the deceased

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

is put to some financial loss, it cannot be said that the petitioners herein had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment in case of Mohit Singhal and Another (supra) has observed as under:

"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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8941/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS are not made out against any of the petitioners. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS