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
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
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.
Geo Verghese v. State of Rajasthan
M. Mohan u. State Represented the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab
Sanju alias Sanjay v. State of M.P.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
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....
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 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 ....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct causation linked to the act of suicide, which was not present in this case.
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 establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear instigation or intentional aid; mere suspicion or threats are insufficient.
The court held that mere familial pressure or demands are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; active instigation must be proven for liability under IPC Sections 306 and 107.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear mens rea and active act to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide in cases of....
Abetment of suicide requires clear evidence of intent to instigate or aid the act; mere mention in a suicide note is insufficient for prosecution under Section 306 IPC.
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.