Abetment requires direct involvement and substantial evidence; mere demands for money do not satisfy the legal standards for criminal charges under IPC. This judgment sets clear precedents for establishing culpability in suicide cases.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. Since both petitions arise from the same FIR and involve similar facts, this common order is being passed to decide the issues raised in both petitions together.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18392 of 2013 is treated as the lead matter.

3. Prosecution case is as under:-

3.1. The complainant, Smt. Ramaben W/o Balubhai Parasotambhai Jat Patel, residing at Plot No. 29/295, Udhna, Surat, originally from Village Ditala, Post Dhari, District Amreli, is a homemaker, while her husband is engaged in land brokerage. In 2006, her husband, acting on the suggestion of his son Majidbhai, executed a Memorandum of Understanding to donate approximately 100 Bigha of land situated at Lajpore to a Muslim Orphanage located at Eighth Lines, Surat, headed by its President, Umarbhai @ Umar General. While documentation for 14 Vidha and sale deeds for 28 Bigha were executed, the remaining land transactions were not completed by the orphanage trustees, resulting in a dispute. Subsequently, a settlement was reached to provide an additional 8 Bigha of land. However, due to non-completion of the documentation, the orphanage representatives allegedly began demanding cash compensation in lieu thereof. Around this time, a police case was also registered against the complainant’s husband in relation to another land matter at Vesu on 05.09.2013, after which he ceased returning home.

3.2. Thereafter, from around 10.09.2013, the complainant's unmarried son, Ravin, was repeatedly summoned by Umar General and Anisbhai to attend meetings at the orphanage, where he was allegedly coerced to arrange immediate payment for the Lajpore land and was further pressured to execute a voucher for Rs. 68 lakhs —an amount allegedly exceeding what was initially received by his father. Ravin, who was not a party to the original transaction, reportedly faced continuous threats and mental harassment, including references to underworld connections from Mumbai. Four to five days before his death, Ravin returned home visibly distressed and shared his ordeal with the complainant. Despite her attempts to resolve the issue through relatives, Ravin died by suicide on 19.09.2013. The complainant attributes his death to the sustained threats and coercion by Umar General and Anisbhai and seeks initiation of criminal proceedings against them for abetment of suicide and criminal intimidation under the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya assisted by learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakiya appearing for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent-State. Though served none appeared for the private respondent.

5. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the primary offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 306 and 385 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, “IPC”), which, even if the contents of the FIR are presumed to be true and correct, do not prima facie constitute the said offences. It is further submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution, the father of the deceased had entered into an agreement to sell more than 100 acres of land to the Yatimkhana (Muslim Orphanage). However, after execution of sale deeds for a portion of the land, he failed to fulfill the entire promise and did not execute sale deeds for the remaining land. Consequently, the President and members of the administrative body of the Yatimkhana began demanding the return of the money pai