Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Akhandbharat Kailashnarayan Singh @ A. B. Singh & Others – Applicants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Others – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 14159 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Suraj A Shukla
For the Respondent: Mr Hardik A Dave, Mr. Manan Mehta, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be specific allegations and instigation, and the court may exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:
Abetment - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Sections 306, 507, 114
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from a marriage, leading to the deceased lodging an FIR against the accused. The accused, including the present applicants, were alleged to have pressured the deceased for a settlement, ultimately resulting in the deceased's suicide and the filing of the impugned FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present applicants were not directly implicated in the suicide note and that there was no specific role attributed to them in the alleged abetment of suicide. The court also considered recent judgments and legal provisions to conclude that no prima facie case was made out against the present applicants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abetment of suicide by the present applicants and the exercise of the court's powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the impugned FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, recent judgments, and the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The court emphasized the absence of specific allegations against the present applicants and the lack of instigation or abetment on their part.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned FIR and all related proceedings against the present applicants, exercising its discretion in their favor.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Mr. Harik Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Mr. Manan Mehtal, learned APP for the respondent No.1-State.
2. The present application is filed by the present applicants to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being I-CR No. 229 of 2018 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1 The marriage between the original accused No.1 i.e. Vijay Murlidharsinh and the deceased sister of the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 26.11.2015 according to Hindu rituals and customs. Thereafter, the deceased had gone to this matrimonial house after one month of rituals at her maternal house. After one month of residing at her matrimonial house, the respondent No.2 brought the deceased back to her maternal house as she fell sick. Thus, the family members of the accused No.1 started harassing the deceased and she did not return back. Thereafter, the deceased had lodged an impugned FIR before the Limbayat Police Station for the offences under Section 498(a), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3,4, and 5 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act against the accused No.1 to 9 on 20.1.2017. Due to these proceedings, the deceased used to frequently visit the District Court, Surat. During those visits, the accused No.1 and his family members along with the present applicants used to pressurize the deceased for settlement of the dispute by regularly calling her. The elder brother of the complainant being Yogesh Sinh had informed the complainant that when he tried to make phone call to the deceased sister, an unknown person had informed that their sister had committed suicide from the Court building. During the investigation, a suicide note has been recovered from the purse of the deceased stating that “Mere Marne ki wajah sirf aur sirf sasural wale hai” Thus, the impugned FIR.
5. Mr. Suraj Shukla, learned advocate for the applicants the applicants have wrongly implicated in the offence considering the fact that the no offence is made out under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code or any other sections and merely the general allegations is made in the impugned FIR. He has further submitted that no specific role is attributed by the present applicants except they are intervenor in the matrimonial disputes. He has further submitted that the present applicants not named in the suicide note. He has further submitted that present applicants are aged about 70 years and are facing hardship due to the criminal proceedings initiated against them due to the impugned FIR. Considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, this is a fit case that where the Court should exercise the powers and to prevent the abuse of process of law and to avoid the unnecessary harassment to the applicants. Therefore, learned advocate for the applicants has requested this Court to allow the present application.
6. Per contra, Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the respondent- complainant has submitted that in the complaint, the applicants are named in the FIR and it is specific averments is made by the complainant in the FIR. He has further submitted that deceased has also written the suicide note before committing the suicide. Considering all these aspects, the prima facie offence is made out under the provision of Section 306 of the IPC more particularly the marriage span is less than 7 years and there is no dispute that some matrimonial dispute is going on between the parties and pursuant thereto, some litigation is also pending before the concerned Court and therefore, he prays that prima facie case is made out, the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C may not be exercised and dismiss the present application.
7. Learned APP Mr. Man
