Abetment of suicide requires clear mens rea and active instigation by the accused, which was absent in this case.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. As both the petitions arise out of the same FIR, with consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For deciding these petitions, the facts of Criminal Misc. Application No.6103 of 2017 are taken into consideration.

3. By way of preferring present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused No.1, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, inter alia, praying for the following main reliefs:

"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc. Application;

(B) Your Lordships further be pleased to quash and set aside the complaint being C.R.No. I- 20/2017 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad - Annexure-A for the offences alleged therein, filed by the respondent no.2 - original complainant, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

4. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR can be summarized thus:

4.1. That the accused no.1, who is the wife of the deceased, is having extramarital affairs with accused no.2 and the said fact has come to the notice of the deceased son of the complainant, due to which, the deceased son of the complainant was upset. The deceased warned the accused No.1 to cut her relations with accused No.2 otherwise he will commit suicide. Inspite of that, the accused No.1 continued her relations with accused No.2 and thereby both the accused persons have abetted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

5. Heard learned advocates Mr. A. J. Yagnik and Mr. Bhavik Samani for the applicants and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. R. J. Goswami for respondent No.2 -complainant.

6. Learned advocate Mr. A. J. Yagnik has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the so- called incident is occurred on 11.01.2017 and FIR is filed on 30.01.2017. Thus, there is gross delay of 19 days in registering the FIR and complainant has not mentioned any reason for such delay in registering the FIR. He has further submitted that complainant is the mother-in-law of the accused No.1. He has further submitted that generally in matrimonial lief, wife commits suicide and husband is shown as an accused but the case on hand is a case wherein the husband has committed suicide and wife has been shown as an accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the span of marriage life of the accused No.1 -applicant with the deceased is of 13 years and due to the said wedlock one baby girl born and at present the said girl is residing with the accused No.1 - wife. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused No.1 - wife of the deceased had developed extramarital relations with her paramour i.e. accused No.2 and due to the said relations, the husband had gone into depression and ultimately committed suicide and therefore FIR has been registered against the accused persons.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik has further submitted that if this Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the body of the FIR, in that event, it would be found out that applicant - accused No.1 has neither abetted, instigated and/or aided in any form, which ultimately drive the deceased to commit suicide by leaving him with no other option than to take the said extreme step. It is the settled proposition of law that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. By bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is found out that the same is registered with mala fide intention and oblique motive to harass and pressurize the applicant and her family members and the said FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and therefore the same is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik h