Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
J.C. Doshi, J.
Sajid @ Jadiyo @ Iqbal Ahemadbhai @ Himmatsinh Chauhan – Applicant
versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No.19077 of 2023
Decided on 3.11.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant Nos.1, 10, 11, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:Mr. Pratik B. Barot (3711), Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. K.M. Antani, APP
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Pratik B. Barot (3711), Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Abetment of suicide – Word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 384, 365, 341, 354, 506(2) and 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Abetment of suicide, extortion, kidnapping, wrongful restraint, attempt to outrage modesty, criminal intimidation and conspiracy – In order to prove prima facie offence under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution is required to show that there is some instigation on part of accused which led deceased to commit suicide – Word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation – Pursuant to compromise arrived at between parties, complainant and relatives of deceased have stated that they have withdrawn allegations against accused and that they have no objection if proceedings are quashed – Inherent power could be exercised by High Court to set aside FIR to prevent abuse of process of law and to otherwise secure ends of justice – There is minimal chance that witnesses would come forward to support case of prosecution to secure conviction of accused – Impugned complaint as well as all consequential proceedings quashed and set aside. (Paras 8, 11, 13 & 14)
Result: Criminal Misc. Application allowed. FIR quashed.
ORDER (ORAL)
By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicants seek quashing of the FIR registered as CR No.I-40 of 2014 with Gorva Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 384, 365, 341, 354, 506(2), 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and under further proceedings arising thereof.
2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Piyush Trivedi is permitted to file his Vakalatnama for org. complainant. He has placed on record the affidavit of the org. complainant who is son of the deceased and wife of the deceased and would submit that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, complainant as well as relatives have amicably settled the dispute with the accused with the intervention of the well-wishers of head of the society as well as overall interest of the family. It is further stated that pursuant to such settlement placed on record, the complainant and the blood relatives of the deceased are not intended to proceed further in the offence alleged against the accused and they have no objection of the proceedings in question are to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that such settlement is voluntarily, freely and without threat or pressure; but from one’s own will.
4. Learned Advocate for both the parties have jointly submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. It is further submitted that on plain reading of the FIR, it does not disclose the offence of abetment as defined in Section 107 and 500 of the IPC. It is further submitted that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and it also requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide left with no option to commit suicide. It is further submitted that mere allegations in the FIR that certain amount has been lent to the deceased and he could not repay the said amount would not constitute the offence. It is further submitted that even if the FIR is seen, there is no incident within the proximity of time of committing suicide which would connect the accused with the crime and thus basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC is lacking. It is also jointly submitted that as the allegations are withdrawn by the complainant and both the witnesses against the accused, there is bleak chance of conviction or rather there is no chance of conviction. It is further submitted that allowing the FIR to role on into a private dispute would not serve any useful purpose and continuation of FIR and subsequent proceeding would be unnecessary harassment and futile exercise.
4.1 Reliance is placed upon the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2009 (16) SCC 605) and B S Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675] to contend that when the compromise has been arrived at between the parties in a private dispute whereby the element of public interest is not involved and parties have withdrawn the allegations and counter allegations against each other, it would be improper to decline to exercise the power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound the non-compoundable offence. It is further submitted that in case where the compromise had been arrived at between the parties by which the parties have withdrawn all the claims and allegations against the accused, technicality it should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would be a futile exercise.
5. On the other hand, learned APP objected to quash the proceeding and contended that even if the settlement has been arrived at between the parties, the case under Section 306 falls in the category of heinous and serious crime and to be treated as against the society and not against the individual. He would further submit that this is not the stag
