The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences unless there is a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘CrPC’), the applicant has prayed to quash and set-aside the complaint being CR No.11198067220071 of 2022 registered with the Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :

(i) That the deceased Vanrajbhai Nanjibhai Rathod had borrowed some amount from the present applicant, for which the applicant was charging heavy interest at the rate of 10%. As the applicant was continuously harassing and tremendously pressurizing the deceased to repay the amount by giving him threats, the deceased, on 24.1.2022, committed suicide by hanging himself in the room of his friend one Arvindbhai @ Mitthun Vallabhbhai Jadav. During the postmortem, the medical officer found a suicide note from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased, in which, the deceased has specifically stated that he had borrowed some amount from Chintan Kaku Gadhali (present applicant) at the rate of 10% and the applicant was harassing and pressurizing him by giving him threats. The deceased has specifically stated in the suicide note that the applicant is a headstrong person and can do anything. Lastly, the deceased has requested to take care of his children.

(ii) On 1.2.2022, the wife of the deceased, namely, Sitaben, lodged the complaint against the present applicant at the Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar. Therefore, the offence was registered against the applicant vide FIR being CR No.11198067220071 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) On the strength of the FIR, the investigation commenced. On 14.2.2022, the applicant approached this Court by preferring the present application with a prayer to quash and set-aside the aforesaid FIR registered against him at the Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar, mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and the complaint, even if considered as it is, does not disclose the commission of offence of abetment of suicide as the allegations contained in the FIR are false and insufficient to meet with the concomitants of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On 22.3.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Vipul M.Pancholi, J.), passed the following order :

“Heard learned advocate, Mr. Hardik Koradiya for the applicant.

Learned advocate submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are prima facie not made out and the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

In view of the above, issue Notice returnable on 28th July, 2022.

Learned APP waives service of notice for respondent – State of Gujarat.

Till next date of hearing, it is open for the Investigating Agency to proceed further with the investigation, however, the chargesheet shall not be filed against the present applicant without prior permission of this Court.”

4. The aforesaid interim order granted by this Court has been extended from time to time.

5. Heard Mr.Hardik Koradiya, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms.Chetna Shah, learned APP for respondent – State.

6. At the outset, it would be note-worthy that the present applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.4440 of 2022.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Hardik Koradiya, while drawing attention of this Court to the FIR of the alleged offence, has submitted that the impugned FIR is lodged by the complainant after a considerable delay of 8 days of the incident without any explanation thereof, which raises serious doubts about the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the applicant never lent money to the deceased at the rate of 10% as alleged. On the contrary, as the deceased was in ne