[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Viruben @ Viralben @ Viku Hirabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
19173 of 2025
================================================================
VIRUBEN @ VIRALBEN @ VIKU HIRABHAI MAALAKIYA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PAWAN A BAROT(6455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS SWETA P BAROT(10181) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 15/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan
Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.Mahesh
Poojara waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - Complainant.
2. By way of preferring the present application under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
applicants-accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this
Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
Report No.11190008230070 of 2023 lodged before the Botad
Rural Police Station, District Botad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; as
well as the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.55 of 2023.
3. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the impugned FIR,
that the deceased husband of the complainant was running a
diamond workshop at village Bhambhan, where the present
applicant no.1 - accused was working as a labour. It is alleged in
the FIR that the present applicant no.1-accused had developed
relations with the deceased, and subsequently, under the pretext
of love affairs, she and her brother (i.e. the applicant no.2) were
demanding Rs.25 lakh from the deceased and also administering
threats to kill him if he would not pay them the money. It is
further alleged 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 jumping himself before a running train at the
Bhambhan railway track near Lathidad Railway Station on
06.02.2023.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pawan A.Barot appearing for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the applicants-accused, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta
appearing for the respondent - State and learned advocate
Mr.Mahesh Poojara appearing for the respondent no.2 -
Complainant.
5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Pawan Barot appearing
for the applicants-accused has submitted that the matter has
been settled between the parties and the complainant, who is the
widow of the deceased, has also filed an affidavit in this regard
on 17.07.2025. He has further submitted that the FIR lodged by
the first informant is palpably false and there is not an iota of
evidence to implicate the present applicants-accused in the
alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what
had happened soon before the incident.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Barot has submitted that the
proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the
applicants-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 wife of the deceased),
there is no other evidence to connect the present applicants-
accused with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations
against the applicants-accused, and the FIR, even if it is
considered at its face value, the same could not even establish
the offence as alleged.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Barot, while taking this Court
through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that
except the suicide note, there is no material on record to suggest
that the present applicants-accused were demanding money
from the deceased or threatening to kill him. Mr.Barot has
submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that
before committing suicide by the deceased, the applicants-
accused had administered any threat or had used abusive
language or incited or provoked him. The entire evidence is silent
as to what had happened soon before the incident. There is no
evidence regarding the monetary transactions and there is no
witness. He has, therefore, submitted that simply on the basis of
making allegation of mental torture in the FIR, without any
direct and proximate act by the applicants-accused, would not
be sufficient to constitute the alleged offence.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Barot has submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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). Except the suicide note, there is no other
corroborative piece of evidence produced by the prosecution,
which prima facie establishes the involvement of the present
applicants in the alleged offence. Furthermore, it reveals from
the materials on record there was no direct or indirect nexus
between the conduct of the applicants-accused 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 applicants-accused.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Barot has, therefore, urged that
considering the aforesaid as well as considering the fact that
settlement has been arrived at between the complainant (i.e. the
wife of the deceased) and the applicants-accused, and the
complainant has also filed an affidavit in this regard, the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
application may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the
proceedings of the Sessions Case may be quashed and set aside.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara appearing for the
respondent no.2 - Complainant admits the fact that settlement
has been arrived at between the parties and has submitted that
the complainant has unequivocally stated in her affidavit dated
17.07.2025 that her husband (i.e. the deceased) and the
applicants were friends and having good relationship with each
other, and that the settlement has been arrived at due to the
intervention of the elderly persons from the community, in the
interest of their future, without any force, coercion, undue
influence or threat from any person. The complainant has
further stated in the affidavit that she has no objection if the
application is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed and set-
aside.
11. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara, therefore, urged that taking
into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties
and the fact that the complainant does not want to pursue
further with the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned
FIR and the Sessions Case, the application may be allowed and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the Sessions
Case may be quashed and set-aside.
12. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta 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. He has further submitted that the
evidence on record clearly establishes the complicity of the
present applicants in the alleged offence. While taking this Court
through the factual matrix of the case, learned APP Mr.Maheta
has submitted that due to the mental torture exerted upon the
deceased by the applicants in demanding an amount of Rs.25
lakh and threatening to kill him, the deceased had committed
suicide. Mr.Maheta has, therefore, submitted that considering
the aforesaid, no doubt, there appears complicity of the present
applicants in the alleged offence. Hence, he has prayed that the
present application may not be entertained and the same may be
rejected.
13. This Court is conscious of the fact that in such type of
serious offences, the FIR cannot be quashed only on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.
14. 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 except
the suicide note and the statement of the complainant, there is
no evidence on record to suggest as to what had happened
immediately preceding the alleged incident on the fateful day.
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.
15. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.
State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 it has been observed
in para 16 as follows :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
"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,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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
the deceased.
17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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."
16. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed by learned APP appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
respondent - State as well as considered the materials on record.
The only allegation against the present applicants is that they
were demanding Rs.25 lakh from the deceased and were
threatening to kill him if the amount is not paid to them.
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. 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). Except the suicide note, there is no other corroborative
piece of evidence produced by the prosecution, which prima facie
establishes the involvement of the present applicants in the
alleged offence. Furthermore, it reveals from the materials on
record there is no direct or indirect nexus between the conduct
of the applicants-accused and the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19173/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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.11190008230070 of 2023 lodged before
the Botad Rural Police Station, District Botad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code; as well as the proceedings of the Sessions Case
No.55 of 2023, are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside
qua the present applicants. 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
