IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Arvind Khimabhai Parmar & Ors. – Applicants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 4684 of 2017 (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order)
Decided On : 18-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for respondent no.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Keyur Vyas for the respondent no.2 waive service of notice of Rule.
2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside First Information Report being C.R. No.I- 3/2017 registered with Madhavpur Police Station, Porbandar for the offences under Sections 306, 498A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code qua the applicants.
3. The gist of the FIR is as under,
The sister of the complainant viz., Rupiben married with one Khimabhai Murubhai Parmar (i.e. the original accused no.1) before 35 years and out of said wedlock, they have been blessed with three sons and two daughters, however when the said Rupiben used to come at her parental home, she complained about the ill-treatment at the hands of the original accused no.1 but at that time, after persuading her, she was returned back to her matrimonial house, however on 01.12.2016, the complainant received call from one Jaysukhbhai, wherein he has informed that his sister, Rupiben has committed suicide by setting herself ablaze and the dead body is taken to Government Hospital, Porbandar for performing postmortem and thus, FIR has been lodged against the accused persons alleging inter alia that the accused have meted out mental and physical torture to the deceased and because of which, the deceased has committed suicide.
4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Chintan Popat for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Dhavan Jayswal for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Mr. Keyur Vyas for the respondent no.2.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Chintan Popat submitted that the impugned FIR has been filed against total 5 accused persons for the alleged offences, wherein the applicants are shown as accused nos.2 to 5. Learned advocate submitted that the applicant nos.1 and 3 are the son of the deceased, whereas the applicant nos.2 and 4 are the wife of the applicant nos.1 and 3 respectively and the original accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased. Learned advocate read over the allegations leveled in the impugned FIR and submitted that bare perusal of the contents of the FIR clearly goes on to show that essentially the allegations were leveled against the original accused no.1, who has not approached this Court for quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned advocate submitted that immediately after the registration of the impugned FIR, the applicants have approached this Court for quashment of the impugned FIR, wherein this Court while issuing notice vide order dated 20.02.2017, protected the applicants by passing an order of no coercive steps. Learned advocate submitted that thereafter, the investigation was carried out and on conclusion of the same, the chargesheet came to be filed against the original accused no.1 and, thereafter, trial against him was concluded before the court concerned and at the end of trial, the original accused no.1 has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him, copy of said order has been placed on record by way of filing an additional affidavit. Learned advocate has taken this Court through the findings given and conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge while passing an order of acquittal and submitted that the learned Judge has considered and appreciated all the evidence available on record. Learned advocate submitted that in the operative part of the order, the learned Judge has made discussion in detail so far as the depositions of witnesses are concerned. It is found out from the record that the original complainant is passed away during the course of proceedings and, therefore, his deposition could not be recorded but rest of the witnesses are examined by the prosecution witnesses but not a single witness has deposed against the applicants and on the contrary, they have deposed in a very categorical terms specifically stating that there was no physical and mental
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Gcngula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P.
M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre
Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nikku Ram
State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh
State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal
In abetment of suicide cases, clear evidence of mens rea and active involvement is required; mere allegations without proof of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
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....
Denial of marriage does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act.
Conviction under sections 498A and 306 requires concrete evidence of cruelty and direct acts of abetment; mere allegations and delays in FIR are insufficient for a successful prosecution.
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
Abetment of suicide requires clear connection between accused's actions and the suicide, with established mens rea of instigation or provocation.
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....
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – Power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is restrictive in nature – It cannot act as a Trial Court and has to be cautious in granting relief sought for in terms of....
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent and direct actions by the accused that compel the victim to commit suicide; emotional distress alone is insufficient.
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.