SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Chandresh Vasantbhai Malani – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 4597 of 2016
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2564 of 2016
Decided On : 04-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Asmi Pandya, Senior Advocate With Mr Gaurav Vyas
For the Respondent: Mr Utpal M Panchal, Mr Dhawan Jayswal, APP

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 114 - Quashing of FIR - Applicants sought to quash FIR for abetment of suicide - Court found essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC missing, emphasizing that mere humiliation does not constitute instigation - The allegations in the FIR do not prima facie establish any offence against the applicants. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 19)

(B) Abetment of Suicide - Definition and requirements - The court reiterated that abetment requires a clear mens rea and an active role by the accused, which must be proximate to the act of suicide - Mere insults or humiliation without intent to instigate do not satisfy the legal threshold for abetment. (Paras 11, 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed after the complainant's son committed suicide, alleging that the applicants, a teacher and a trustee, had humiliated him in front of classmates, leading to his suicide. The court noted that the complainant's allegations were based on hearsay and lacked direct evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence, and the applicants did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants' actions constituted abetment under Section 306 IPC and whether the FIR could be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential elements of abetment were absent, emphasizing that humiliation alone does not equate to instigation necessary for a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Result: Applications allowed; FIR quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since the relief prayed for in both the petitions is to quash a selfsame FIR, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. By way of preferring these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-12 of 2016 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

3. The case made out by the respondent No.2 – original complainant in the First Information Report may be summarized as under:

3.1. The son of the First Informant Rakesh, aged about 18 years, was studying in 12th Science Stream in Samarpan School. On 22nd January, 2016, the son of the complainant has committed suicide by jumping from 11th floor, B Wing of Darshan Residency. It is the specific case of the complainant that she received information from the fellow students of her son viz. Maulik and Sandip that one week before the incident, a student viz. Milan Pansuriya told to the trustee of the school Shri Janakbhai (applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.2564 of 2016) in the form of complaint that earlier teaching staff of the school was good and new teaching staff is not comparatively up to the mark. The aforesaid conversation overheard by one teacher Chandresh sir (applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.4597 of 2016) and therefore he had beaten Milan on that day and asked him the reason as to why he had made complaint to the trustee that new teaching staff was not good one. At that point of time, Chandresh Sir had also administered threat that he will also beat other students on the next coming days. On 21.01.2015, during the class of said Chandresh Sir, an incident of commotion occurred behind the bench of deceased therefore he called his student viz. Rakesh (the deceased) near the dias and without asking anything, he slapped him twice or thrice. Therefore, the deceased asked why he was slapped and beaten in front of the class without any fault on his part. Chandresh Sir replied that he would inform him the reason at 5:10 p.m. Since the deceased insisted upon the reason, at that relevant point of time, the teacher told him that he is spoiling the atmosphere of the classroom and directed him to go out of the classroom and on that day after the school time, the trustee of the school also called the deceased in his office and he was told to go home at around 6 O’clock and on that day, in the evening, the deceased had made a phone call to teacher (Chandresh Sir) by using mobile of his friend and abused him.

3.2. On the very next day, the deceased was instructed by trustee Janakbhai through the caretaker of the school and directed him to sit on fourth floor of the school and he sat over there for more than 2 hours ideally without doing anything and as per the case of the prosecution fourth floor of the school is empty and curricular or any extra curricular activities have not been done over there and thereafter he was called by the trustee and directed that entire incident was brought to the notice of his parents and he should have to leave for home and come along with his parents at 3:00 p.m. and thereafter the said unfortunate incident took place.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya assisted by learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Vyas for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal for the original complainant.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya submitted that if Hon’ble Court would go through the contents of the FIR, plainly on the face of the record, it is found out that the basic, necessary and essential ingredients to constitute the offence of Section 306 of IPC are missing. The entire narration of story as well as sequence of events mentioned in the FIR are based

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top