Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Parmar Kankuben W/o Kanabhai @ Kohyabhai Parmar & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed By Subordinate Court) No. 1084 of 2024 With Criminal Revision Application No. 1100 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jigar D Dave
For the Respondent: Mr Hardik Mehta APP.
IMPORTANT POINT
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or a proximate cause linking the accused to the suicide.
Headnote:
Abetment - IPC Sections 306, 114 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC regarding abetment of suicide, emphasizing the necessity of a proximate cause and explicit instigation for liability under Section 306, ultimately concluding that the applicants' actions did not meet these criteria.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash an FIR alleging abetment of suicide after their daughter was allegedly kidnapped. The original complainant's husband committed suicide, and the applicants were accused of threatening the complainant's family regarding the abduction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no proximate cause linking the applicants to the suicide, as the threats alleged did not constitute instigation under Section 306 of IPC, and the applicants had filed their own complaints regarding the abduction.
Issues: Whether the actions of the applicants constituted abetment of suicide under IPC Sections 306 and 114.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere threats or anger without explicit instigation do not satisfy the requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
Result: The applications to quash the FIR were rejected.
ORDER :
1. The present revision applications have been filed praying to quash and set aside the order dated 09.07.2024 passed below Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-4 respectively in Sessions Case No.4 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Court, Aravalli at Modasa, and also prayed to discharge the applicants from the charges punishable under sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The FIR being FIR No.11188006230472 of 2023 was registered before the Malpur Police Station, Dist. Arvalli on 24.08.2023, under sections 306 and 114 of IPC.
3. The facts of the case, as was noted are that the minor daughter of the applicants was alleged to have been abducted and kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of applicant no.1, by the son of original complainant namely Vishal S/o. Somabhai Kalabhai Parmar. Having come to know of the said fact on 16.08.2023, a complaint being FIR No.0443/2023 was registered with Malpur Police Station, Dist. Aravalli for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. and under section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POSCO’ for short). Thereafter, on 18.08.2023, the applicant no.1 had registered another complaint bearing Cr.No.II- 0449/2023 with Malpur Police Station, Dist. Aravalli for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC against the original complainant of the present matter, her son and her husband.
3.1 As per the facts, on 21.08.2023, original complainant and her son Jigar S/o Somabhai Chamar, both had appeared to the Malpur Police Station to record the statement, but husband of the complainant did not appear before the Malpur Police Station, and thereafter on 24.08.2024, the original complainant lodged the present FIR, which is impugned in the present matter. In connection to the same, discharge has been prayed under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Mr. Jigar D.Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, relied on the judgment of Samir Bipinbhai Maradiya @ Vaniya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (1) G.L.H. 469 and Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered on 01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023, to submit that there is no proximate cause to connect the present applicants with the suicide of the husband of the complainant.
4.1 Advocate Mr. Jigar D.Dave stated that on 21.08.2023, when the original complainant and her son had appeared before the Malpur Police Station, the deceased did not appear before the Malpur Police Station, and thereafter 24.08.2024, an FIR came to be lodged. Mr. Dave, thus, stated that the incident has started from 15.08.2023 and till 24.08.2024, there is no any proximate cause or any connection to show that the present applicants had abetted the commission of offence. Mr. Dave stated that the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure.
4.2 Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that, to bring the case under section 306, as observed by this Court in earlier matter of Samir Bipinbhai Maradiya @ Vaniya (supra), the process of instigation must be explicitly alleged, and the words ‘uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention’, cannot be termed as instigation.
5. Referring to the facts of the case, relying on the report, Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP, submitted that all the accused on 16.08.2023 came to the house of the complainant and had asked them to find their daughter, who was alleged to have been abducted by her son Vishal, and had threatened them to find her and return her back to them otherwise to vacate the house, and unless and until their daughter is not found, they would not allow them to enter the village, and if at all they would come, then they would burn their house.
5.1 Mr. Mehta, learned APP, submitted that such mental harassment had been caused by the present applicants. Mr. Mehta stated that rather than allowing the police to undertake the necessary process, where already FIR had been filed under the POSCO Act, the
