IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the importance of establishing the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and highlighted the scope and ambit of Court’s power under Section 482 of Cr.PC in quashing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicants-original accused have preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11191008210708 of 2021 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable with Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. This Court has heard Mr. Smit Vaghela for Mr. Sandip Patel, learned advocate for the applicants and State Counsel Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr. Mehul Surati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 did not turn up for hearing when the matter was called out and was also informed by the Counsel appearing for the applicant herein. However, the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No.2-complainant has been considered.

4. The brief facts giving rise to file the present application are that, the husband of the second respondent Manish Ramanlal Makwana has committed suicide by hanging himself at his house. The said incident happened on 29.4.2021. On 3.6.2021, the wife of the deceased- second respondent has lodged an FIR against the applicants, who are parents and family members of the deceased, inter alia, alleging that due to property dispute, the deceased was subjected to harassment, mentally and physically, as a result, he committed suicide, for which the accused are responsible, as they have abetted and aided the deceased in committing the suicide. In the FIR, it is alleged that after marriage, which took place in 2003, she was mentally and physically harassed on the petty issues of house-hold work, as a result, she had filed a complaint in the year 2010 against the applicants-accused wherein, with the intervention of the elderly persons, a compromise was arrived at and thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home. The house in which they are residing, is in the name of father-in-law and mother-in-law. The accused have intentionally decided not to give any right in the property, as a result, the husband deceased was under depression. The parents of the deceased, by public notice, informed everybody that their son is not in their control. A suit was also filed for permanent injunction and declaration against the deceased. It is further alleged that due to continuous harassment and boycott of the deceased from the Society, the deceased was under pressure and depression and before he committed suicide, he had also sent message that if anything happens to his life, the accused would be responsible.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is alleged that accused are responsible for the suicide as they have played positive and active role in the commission of the suicide.

6. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation carried out by the Police and finally the charge-sheet came to be filed, before the Court concerned. The applicants made draft amendment and have also challenged the charge-sheet filed by the Police.

7. Mr. S.P.Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that the FIR and charge-sheet case papers lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged; that the facts and circumstances of the case do not in any way, indicate that the alleged act would constitute abetment to commit a suicide; that there is complete absence of any sort of instigation or any positive move on the part of the applicants, causing the deceased to commit suicide; that the ingredients of the abetment, as laid down in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, is completely absent in this case and considering the allegations made in the FIR, as well as the material collected during the course of investigation, do not establish or suggest that there was intention on the part of the applicants, to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased in committing the suicide and, therefore, in absence of any material with respect to the charge of abetment of suicide, merely allegations of harassment are not sufficient to draw inference that the accused have abe