IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J.
Ramesh Babubhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 22198 of 2018
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 107, 306, 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 –Section 482 – Criminal Case – Original complainant – Complainant to commit suicide – Quashing First Information Report – Consequential proceedings – Abetment of suicide – Abettor present when offence is committed – Both applications are arising out of same FIR being CR registered (Rural) Police Station, offences punishable under Sections 306 & 114 of Indian Penal Code and Criminal Case pending before court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held, Complaint does not indicate anything about why there was a delay of more than 15 days even after complainant was discharged from hospital – Complaint itself states that complainant was well aware of fact that her husband was demanding some outstanding amount from applicants and she herself accompanied deceased to office of applicant No.1 and when applicant has allegedly uttered word to deceased that, you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die, which according to complainant amounts to instigating deceased to commit suicide – However, though aforesaid incident has allegedly taken place one month before registration of FIR, but complaint was filed and complaint is absolutely silent about delay of more than 15 days in registering FIR – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Nirzar S. Desai, J.
1. Both the applications are arising out of the same FIR being CR No.I-32 of 2018 registered with Vadodara Taluka (Rural) Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Case No.40106 of 2018 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.
2. Heard Mr.Abhisst Thaker, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.22189 of 2018, Mr.Mitul Shelat, learned counsel with Mr.Rutul Desai, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.14677 of 2018, Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr.Nikunj Savaliya, learned advocate for Mr.Chaitanya Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - original complainant in both the matters.
3. By the consent of learned advocates for the parties, both the matters were taken up for hearing. Hence, Rule. Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives rule for the State respondent and Mr.Savaliya, learned advocate waives rule on behalf of respondent No.2 in both the matters.
4. Brief facts giving rise to both the applications are states as under.
4.1 One Heenaben, widow of Alpeshbhai Vinubhai Thakkar filed the impugned FIR on 11.5.2018. It is alleged in the FIR that her husband was into the business of building construction as contractor through his firm 'Sahyog Infrastructure Works' and used to carry out construction work of Ramesh Babubhai Patel, the applicant of Misc. Criminal Application No.22198 of 2018, who is owner of Kasata Hometech (India) Pvt. Ltd. as also the work of Hitesh Shah, Managing Director of Acquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., who happens to be the applicant of Misc. Criminal Application No.14677 of 2018.
4.2 According to the complaint, upon carrying out the construction work for the firms of both the applicants, the husband of the complainant was required to get the outstanding amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- from the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.22198 of 2018 and around Rs.15,00,000/- from the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.14677 of 2018. The husband of the complainant went to the office of Ramesh Babubhai Patel before a month of registration of the FIR and requested him to pay the outstanding amount. However, Ramesh Babubhai Patel did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and told the husband of the complainant that the bills raised by him were not genuine and when the husband of the applicant said that if the amount is not paid to him, he will have to die. At that point of time, Ramesh Babubhai Patel told husband of the complainant that he may do whatever he likes and if he wanted to die, he may die and he will not pay the amount requested by him. Similarly, when the complainant along with her husband visited other persons, all of them refused to pay the alleged outstanding amount to husband of the complainant. As per the complaint, a whatsapp group with title of 'Alvida' was created by the husband of the complainant and in that group he added three persons viz. Gaurav, Mehul and Tarun, with whom he used to work with him and sent a message to them that despite having worked sincerely on the construction sites and completing the projects his outstanding dues were not paid and he had even paid interest of around Rs.3,50,00,000/- in respect of the aforesaid sites and now he was fed up, and therefore, committing suicide. Ultimately, while driving the car, the complainant and her husband consumed poison together. However, thereafter the husband of the complainant Alpesh died and the complainant was discharged from the hospital and thereafter she filed the impugned FIR, in all against 12 persons, including the present applicants.
5. Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhisst Thaker, learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.22189 of 2018 and Mr.Mitul Shelat, learned counsel with Mr.Rutul Desai, lear
SupremeToday
Abetment of suicide requires clear mens rea and active instigation by the accused, which was absent in this case.
Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person for offences under Section 306 IPC, basic and essential ingredients of offence, whether death was suicidal and whether there was abetment and instig....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and direct or active instigation for the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment also emphasizes....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea and an active role by the accused, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
The main legal point established is that to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be mens rea and direct or active assistance by the accused, as per the legal principles outlined ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.