[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gambhirsinh Movtaji Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 25862 of 2025
================================================================
GAMBHIRSINH MOVTAJI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. J.V.JAPEE(358) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. PRIYANKA P.THAKKAR(5890) for the Respondent(s) No.
2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 08/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Ms.Priyanka
P.Thakkar waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent nos.2.1 to 2.5 (i.e. the heirs of the original
complainant).
2. By way of preferring the present application under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
present applicant (i.e. the original accused no.1) seeks to invoke
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-
aside the First Information Report No.11209014230242 of 2023
lodged before the Gambhoi Police Station, District Sabarkantha,
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Sections 108, 352 and 54
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
3.1 On 21.04.2023, the complainant (i.e. the son of the
deceased Bhathiji Ranaji Parmar) had lodged a complaint before
the Gambhoi Police Station, District Sabarkantha, inter alia,
stating that his grandfather had mortgaged the agricultural
lands known as 'Navsariwalu khetar' and 'Limdiwalu khetar' to
the present applicant - Gambhirsinh Movtaji Parmar for a
consideration of Rs.16,000=00. It is stated that the deceased
father of the complainant was often visiting the applicant for
release of the said mortgage, however, the applicant was neither
accepting the amount nor releasing the mortgage. It is alleged
that the applicant had even tried to cause injury to the deceased
father of the complainant, therefore, his father was disappointed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
3.2 The complainant further alleged in the FIR that the
agricultural lands in question were of the joint ownership/co-
parcenary of his late father and his uncle, Shri Deepaji. It is
stated that the deceased had obtained an agricultural crop loan
of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Vijaya Bank, Himmatnagar Branch.
The said loan was facilitated by agents, namely Rakeshbhai
Kodarbhai Patel and Shaileshbhai Sureshbhai Patel, who, upon
disbursal of the loan amount, dishonestly misappropriated the
funds by withdrawing the said amount through cheques and did
not pay a single penny to the deceased father of the
complainant. Therefore, since the father of the complainant
could not repay the loan amount, he was under mental distress
and depression.
3.3 It is further alleged that owing to the mortgage created on
the agricultural lands jointly held by the deceased father of the
complainant and his uncle, the aunt of the complainant,
Smt.Champaben Deepaji, was unable to alienate or sell her
share of the property. Consequently, she was frequently
engaging in altercations with the complainant's father and
restrained them from accessing or cultivating their field.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
3.4 The complainant has further averred that a friend of the
deceased, one Shri Hasmukhbhai Laljibhai Patel (Kachchhi) had
borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lakh from the deceased but failed to
repay the same. This outstanding liability, along with the other
issues, placed the deceased under immense mental pressure and
persistent duress.
3.5 It is further averred by the complainant that one day prior
to the incident, the aunt and the cousin brothers of the
complainant, namely, Bhupatji and Maheshji, had come to their
house and were quarreling with the deceased regarding
repayment of the loan amount, due to which the deceased was
remaining under constant stress and tension.
3.6 The complainant has stated in the FIR that feeling severely
distressed and disappointed due to the harassment on the part
of the accused persons, the deceased took the drastic step of
committing suicide by hanging himself from a tree in the field.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee for the applicant,
learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel for the respondent - State and
learned advocate Ms.Priyanka P.Thakkar for the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
nos.2.1 to 2.5 (i.e. the heirs of the original complainant).
5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee appearing for
the applicant-accused has submitted that the only role
attributed to the present applicant, as per the FIR, is restricted
to the creation of a mortgage over the lands owned by the
deceased father of the complainant for a consideration of
Rs.16,000=00, and when the deceased attempted to redeem the
said mortgage, the applicant allegedly failed to accept the
mortgage money and refused to release the mortgage regarding
the subject lands, which are asserted to be of the joint
ownership of the complainant's father and his uncle. Learned
advocate Mr.Japee has further submitted that the other
allegations made in the impugned FIR are against the co-
accused person.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Japee has submitted that the FIR
lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there is not an
iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant-accused with
the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to
what had happened soon before the incident. Mr.Japee has
further submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
instigation by the applicant-accused and the commission of
suicide by the deceased has not been proved. It is submitted that
except the statement of the complainant (who is the son of the
deceased), there is no other evidence to connect the present
applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that
the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general
allegations against the applicant-accused, and the FIR, even if it
is considered at its face value, the same could not even establish
the offence as alleged in the FIR.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Japee, while taking this Court
through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that on
bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it clearly appears that the
only allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he
had refused to accept the amount of mortgage tendered by the
deceased father of the complainant and refused to release the
mortgage. It is submitted that there are no allegations against
the present applicant that he had administered any threat to the
deceased or had used abusive language or incited or provoked
the deceased soon before committing suicide by the deceased. It
is submitted that refusal to accept the amount of mortgage
tendered by the deceased father of the complainant or not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
releasing the mortgage cannot be considered as instigation to
commit suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code (corresponding Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023). Furthermore, it is submitted that the material on
record contains no allegation of instigation, intentional aid, or
active participation by the applicant to induce the deceased to
commit suicide. Mr.Japee has also submitted that the allegation
of mental stress or financial pressure, without any direct and
proximate act by the applicant, are not sufficient to constitute
the alleged offence.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Japee has submitted that the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the
essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section 108 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). He further submits that the
record is conspicuously silent on the requisite elements of mens
rea and 'instigation' as mandated by Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code (corresponding Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023). Admittedly, there is no suicide note by the
deceased or any other corroborative piece of evidence produced
by the prosecution, which prima facie establish the involvement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Furthermore, a
plain reading of the FIR reveals that there was no direct or
indirect nexus between the conduct of the applicant and the
suicide by the deceased. Consequently, he has submitted that
taking the allegations in the FIR stricto sensu and at face value,
no cognizable offence is disclosed against the applicant.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Japee has, therefore, urged that
considering the aforesaid as well as considering the fact that the
heirs of the original complainant have arrived at the settlement
with the present applicant and have also filed affidavits to that
effect, the present application may be allowed and the impugned
FIR may be quashed and set aside.
10. Learned advocate Ms.Priyanka P.Thakkar appearing for the
respondents - heirs of the original complainant, has submitted
that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and
the heirs of the original complainant have filed affidavits dated
15.01.2026 confirming the said fact. In the said affidavits, the
heirs of the original complainant have unequivocally stated that
since the original complainant has expired and an amicable
settlement has been arrived at with the present applicant, they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
do not want to pursue further with the criminal proceedings filed
against the applicant and have no objection if the application is
allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed and set-aside.
11. Per contra, learned APP Ms.Asmita Patel appearing for the
respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present
application and has submitted that having regard to the
gravamen and seriousness of the offence, the consent quashing
would not be permissible. She has further submitted that the
evidence on record clearly establishes the complicity of the
present applicant in the alleged offence. While taking this Court
through the factual matrix of the case, learned APP Ms.Patel has
submitted that due to the distress and disappointment by the
conduct of the applicant in not releasing the mortgage of the
lands in question or accepting the amount of mortgage, the
deceased had committed suicide. Ms.Patel has submitted that
even prior to the occurrence of the incident, the deceased was
staying disturbed and in a tense state of mind. She has,
therefore, submitted that considering the aforesaid, no doubt,
there appears complicity of the present applicant in the alleged
offence. Hence, she has prayed that the present application may
not be entertained and the same may be rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
12. This Court is conscious of the fact that in such type of
serious offences, the FIR cannot be quashed only on the basis of
the consent and the court has to consider the merits of the case
and to form an opinion, whether the ingredients of Section 107
are attracted or not ? In other words, by examining the
materials on record, the court would require to form an opinion,
whether, there is a prima facie case against the present
applicant-accused, which requires a full-fledged trial.
13. It is settled that to attract Section 107 of the IPC, 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 has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must
be in the close proximity to the act of committing suicide. In the
present case, it appears from the materials on record that there
is no suicide note by the deceased, and further there is no
evidence on record to suggest as to what had happened soon
before the incident. Even after perusing the impugned FIR, this
Court does not find that the essential ingredients of Section 107
of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
14. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of Shenbagavalli and others vs. Inspector of
Police, Kancheepuram District and another, reported in 2025
INSC 607, wherein the Supreme Court held as under :-
"15. Section 306 requires a person having committed
suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such
commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be
found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment
under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement
by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing
such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that
conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an
illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of
judgments of this Court it stands established that the
essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC
are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely
because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the
deceased by using abusive language would not by itself
constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence
suggesting that the accused intended by such act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. [M.Arjunan vs.
State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC
315]
16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 it has been observed
in para 16 as follows :-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted
and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays
an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-
respect of the victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea
on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds
of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each
case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the deceased.
17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of
abetment to suicide, and the said ingredients having not
been fulfilled, the further continuation of proceedings would
not be sustainable. The other evidence such as statements,
sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apart from the
suicide note, does not in any manner advance the case of
the prosecution, particularly when the foundation of the case
is the suicide note itself. With the very element of abetment
conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR
which is primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential
requirements for constituting an offence under Section 306
IPC remain unfulfilled. As such, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot
permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of
harassment or unjust prosecution.
18. The Court would not hesitate to exercise its
extraordinary powers which are inherent to quash such
proceedings when it comes to fore, and the court is satisfied
that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse
of process of Court or that the ends of the justice require that
the proceedings ought to be quashed. Reference in this
regard may be made to the Judgment of this Court in Geo
Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) 19
SCC 144."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
15. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed by learned APP appearing for the
respondent - State as well as considered the materials on record.
The only allegation against the present applicant is that he had
obtained the agricultural lands known as 'Navsariwalu khetar'
and 'Limdiwalu khetar' on mortgage from the grandfather of the
complainant for a consideration of Rs.16,000=00, and when the
deceased (i.e. complainant's father) attempted to redeem the said
mortgage, the applicant allegedly failed to accept the mortgage
money and refused to release the mortgage of the lands, which
are asserted to be of the joint ownership of the complainant's
father and his uncle. Considering the FIR on a demurrer and at
its highest, it prima facie appears that the ingredients of Sections
306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. There is
no mention of any survey number in the FIR, however, the
description of the land has been given as 'Navsariwalu khetar'
and 'Limdiwalu khetar'. The applicant has produced the revenue
record at Annexure-B to the application (village form no.6),
which clearly reveals that the lands were not mortgaged to the
applicant, but due to the partition, the lands bearing Survey
No.54/1 came to the share of the father of the present applicant
vide Entry No.673 dated 10.12.1997, and on the death of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
father of the applicant - Movtaji Parmar, entry bearing No.811
was mutated in the name of the present applicant on
30.04.2004. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record
regarding the mortgage of the lands for Rs.16,000=00 and no
documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant
regarding the mortgage. There is no revenue entry or
correspondence between the complainant and the applicant
regarding the mortgage or no legal notice has been served to the
applicant or any offer being made by the complainant regarding
the release of the mortgage. It also appears from the materials on
record that Entry No.811 was challenged by the deceased in the
R.T.S. Appeal No.68 of 2018, however, the same came to be
dismissed. Therefore, an MoU was entered into between the
parties and the matter was settled. So, it appears from the
aforesaid, that the allegations levelled against the present
applicant are entirely baseless as there is no corroborative piece
of evidence on record.
16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, for the sake of
argument, even if the court believes that the applicant was not
accepting the amount of mortgage from the complainant's father
and was not releasing the mortgage, that by itself cannot attract
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the elements of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code since there
is no evidence or even a statement of any eye-witness to suggest
that the present applicant was threatening or torturing or had
threatened or tortured the applicant soon before the incident,
which led the deceased to take an extreme step of committing
suicide. It is noteworthy that there is neither any suicide note
nor any eyewitness or CDR, which suggests the nexus between
the act or omission on the part of the present applicant and
committing suicide by the deceased.
17. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the power
conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (corresponding Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is extraordinary, and it 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, the power should be exercised. Upshot
of the above discussion, the present application deserves
consideration.
18. In the result, the present application is allowed. The First
Information Report No.11209014230242 of 2023 lodged before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/25862/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
the Gambhoi Police Station, District Sabarkantha, for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set-
aside qua the present applicant. All consequential proceedings
arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside.
19. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
