[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 24488 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24489 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
DHARAMSINHBHAI TALJABHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH POOJARA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant
MS KRINA P.CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ABHISHEK K KHUMAN(12902) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 05/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.Abhishek
Khuman waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - original complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
2. By way of preferring the present applications under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
present applicants (i.e. the original accused nos.2 and 3) seek to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and
set-aside the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, below application Exhibit 6 in
Sessions Case No.67 of 2022; as well as, the order dated
01.10.2025 passed below the Charge (Exh.9) in Sessions Case
No.67 of 2022.
3. The impugned FIR bearing CR.No.11217020220277 of
2022 came to be lodged by the complainant (who is the sone of
the deceased) against the present applicants-accused before the
B-Division Police Station, Patan city, for the offences punishable
under Sections 306, 506(1), 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code; as well as, under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat
Money-Lenders Act, 2011.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
the son of the deceased, had lodged the impugned FIR before the
B-Division Police Station, Patan city, inter alia, stating that in
the year 2017-2018, his father (i.e. the deceased) had taken a
loan of Rs.1 lakh @ 10% interest from the accused no.1,
Amratbhai Desai, and a loan of Rs.1 lakh @ 10% interest from
the accused no.3, Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai Desai. The
complainant further stated that although the loan amounts were
repaid by his father to the accused, they were still demanding
more money and threatening to implicate him in cases under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by depositing the
cheques given to them by his father towards the security of the
loan amounts advanced to his father. It is alleged by the
complainant that a day preceding the incident, i.e. on
06.04.2022 at around 9:27 a.m., the accused no.1 had called
and threatened the complainant, demanding either to repay the
debt or vacate the society. Therefore, the complainant had
informed about the same to his father, who, in turn, told him
that he has already repaid the entire amount to the accused
persons, and they are mentally torturing him. It is alleged that
due to the severe mental torture inflicted by the accused
persons, his father committed suicide by consuming poisonous
substance on 07.04.2022 at around 12:30 in the midnight. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
deceased was rushed to the hospital at Dharpur, where, he died
during the treatment.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara for Mr.Ashish
M.Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused,
learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the respondent no.1
- State and learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Khuman appearing
for the respondent no.2 - complainant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS-ACCUSED :
6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara
appearing for the applicants-accused has submitted that the
matter has been settled between the parties and the
complainant, namely, Parikshit Kanjibhai Rabari (i.e. the son of
the deceased) has also filed an affidavit substantiating the said
fact.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara 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 applicants-accused with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to
what had happened soon before the incident. Mr.Poojara has
further 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
the postmortem report suggests that the deceased had died due
to cardiac arrest and the viscera report shows no sign of any
poisonous substance. Furthermore, except the statement of the
complainant (who is the son of the deceased), there is no other
evidence to implicate the present applicants with the alleged
offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the 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 in the FIR.
8. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara, 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 sole
allegation levelled against the present applicants is that they
were demanding more money than the advanced amount paid by
them to the deceased and threatening the deceased to implicate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
him in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act if the amount is not returned. It is submitted that there is no
allegation 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. Furthermore, it has been
submitted that though the statement of the wife and the
daughter of the deceased, as well as, the statement of other
witnesses, namely, Dharamshibhai, Jairambhai, Alkeshkumar,
have been recorded, yet nowhere the same reflects any act of
abetment by the present applicant-accused.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara has further submitted that
the present applicant and the deceased were known to each
other, and since the deceased was doing fabrication work, the
present applicant had engaged him to construct a shed for his
cattle and made him an advance payment of Rs.6 lakh. But,
since the deceased failed to complete the work, the applicant had
demanded his money back. However, since the deceased was
unable to return the money, he had issued cheques to the
applicant towards security of the amount. However, as the
deceased did not return the amount, the applicant had deposited
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
the cheques, which were subsequently dishonoured and,
therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was filed by the present applicant against the
deceased for recovery of the amount, which came to be registered
as Criminal Case No.3185 of 2021 pending before the learned
JMFC, Patan, wherein, process came to be issued under Section
204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 15.04.2021.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara has submitted that
demanding one's legitimate dues 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.Poojara 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.
11. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara, while referring to the
postmortem report, has submitted that the same indicates that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
the deceased died due to the cardiac arrest, and as the viscera
report shows no sign of any poisonous substance, it appears
that the deceased died a natural death. Learned advocate has,
therefore, 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 has further submitted 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). Learned advocate Mr.Poojara has submitted that the 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.
12. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara has, therefore, urged that
considering the aforesaid as well as considering the fact that the
original complainant, who is the son of the deceased, has arrived
at the settlement with the present applicant and has also filed an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
affidavit to that effect, the present application may be allowed
and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT:
13. Learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Khuman appearing for the
respondent - complainant has submitted that a settlement has
been arrived at between the parties and the complainant, who is
the son of the deceased, has also filed an affidavit dated
23.03.2026 substantiating the said fact. In the said affidavit, the
complainant has unequivocally stated that he has paid Rs.1 lakh
to the present applicant, which was borrowed by his father, and
since the dispute has been resolved, he does not want to pursue
further with the criminal proceedings filed against the applicant
and has no objection if the application is allowed and the
impugned FIR is quashed and set-aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :
14. Per contra, learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the
respondent - State has vehemently opposed the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
application and has submitted that the present applicants have
been specifically named in the suicide note, and the CDR details
corroborate with the allegations made by the complainant in the
impugned FIR. She has, therefore, submitted that having regard
to the gravamen and seriousness of the offence, the consent
quashing would not be permissible. Learned APP Ms.Calla 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.Calla has submitted that due to the mental
torture exerted by the applicant upon the deceased in
demanding the money, the deceased had committed suicide by
consuming poisonous substance. Learned APP Ms.Calla 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.
15. This Court is conscious of the fact that in such type of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
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.
16. 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. It
appears from the materials on record that there is no allegation
against the present applicants that they 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. No doubt, there is a suicide note by the deceased and
the present applicants have been named; but, it prima facie
appears from the postmortem report that the deceased died due
to the cardiac arrest and the viscera report shows no sign of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
poisonous substance. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the
impugned FIR, that the present applicants were demanding more
money than the advanced amount paid by them to the deceased
and threatening the deceased to implicate him in cases under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the amount is
not returned; however, it appears from the materials on record
that the applicants had already deposited the cheques in the
year 2021 itself, and following their dishonour, a complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed,
and a case is currently pending.
17. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
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 :-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
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."
CONCLUSION :
18. Having carefully examined the materials on record, this
Court finds that the panchnama carried out by the police did not
disclose presence of any bottle or article containing poisonous
substance at the scene of the offence or on the deceased's
person. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence indicating
that the deceased had purchased or possessed any poisonous
substance. Apart from the phone call received by the
complainant, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the
applicants had enticed, instigated, provoked, or threatened the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
undefined
deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly, there is no phone call
recording or CDR on record. Furthermore, the postmortem
report suggests that the deceased had died due to cardiac arrest
and the viscera report shows no sign of any poisonous
substance. Even, the statements of the deceased's wife,
daughter, and other witnesses, namely, Dharamshibhai,
Jairambhai, and Alkeshkumar, do not suggest any act of
abetment by the present applicants-accused. Prima facie, it
appears that the allegations levelled against the present
applicants-accused that they were threatening the deceased to
implicate him in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act are far from the truth as there is no
corroborative piece of evidence on record. 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.
19. 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/24488/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
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.
20. In the result, the present applications are allowed. The
order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Patan, below application Exhibit 6 in Sessions
Case No.67 of 2022; as well as, the order dated 01.10.2025
passed below the Charge (Exh.9) in Sessions Case No.67 of
2022, are hereby quashed and set-aside qua the present
applicants. All consequential proceedings arising pursuant
thereto are also quashed and set-aside.
21. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
