Prosecution must prove instigation for suicide; mere financial pressure or delays in filing FIR do not meet necessary criteria under Section 306 IPC.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 4 of 2018 registered with Vanda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 387, 504, 114 of the IPC and Section 39 , 40 and 42(d) of MONEY LENDING ACT as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3. That on 21.03.2020, the day on which, the deceased resorted to commission of suicide, his nephew first informant now lodges an FIR as on the strength of two sets of suicide notes-cum-writings found from the pocket of the deceased as also from his house inter-alia alleging that the present applicant and other accused persons who were either agents or under the administration of Jeevan Rekha Saving Scheme, there were investments made through various agents like deceased which on a maturity date since administrators of Jeevan Rekha Saving Scheme were approached by the agents like deceased in order to the return the maturity amount to a given investor, it is alleged that in a monthly recurring account so maintained through agents like deceased, as and when administrators i.e. original accused Nos.1 and 2 were approached as on behalf of an individual investor, payments were not released rather instead false assurances were given by the co- accused persons so as to release the amount but because at the end no payment was released despite making limited attempts by the deceased as an agent working at Viramgam, on account of pressure exerted by individual investors who had invested into the scheme through the deceased, he could not bear the pressure exerted and resorted to commission of suicide by hanging himself with a tree near his house resulting into now registration of a case of Section 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the accused persons.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner referring to the FIR in question would submit that no ingredients of offences u/s 107 and 306 of the IPC are made out. He would further submit that from the FIR, no positive action from the petitioner is found, which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that the FIR is also filed belatedly, after 3 months of the incident which indicates that the FIR is filed after due deliberation and consultation and designed to implicate the accused for the offence under section 306 of the IPC. He would further submit that against the similarly situation the FIR with consent is quashed by this Court against other accused no.1 and therefore, on the ground of parity, present petition deserves consideration.

5. The above submission is made by learned advocate for the petitioner to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the complainant would submit that since the petitioner has approached this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the FIR at threshold, in absence of the investigation in regards to the office, it cannot be said that there is no instigation which prompted the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that the police has not formed any opinion whether the offence under section 306 of the IPC is made out or not. Upon such submission, he request to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned APP, adopting the argument of learned advocate Mr Dave, requests to pass necessary order.

8. What could be noticed