ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. By way of this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalol, District Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.11 of 2023, wherein the application preferred for discharge by the applicant came to be rejected. The FIR was registered as C.R. No.I-11216022210618 of 2021 with Kalol Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Heard learned advocates Mr. Ashish Dagli with Mr. Hardik P. Barot for the applicant, who submitted that the deceased who committed suicide by hanging herself with the aid of a dupatta in her house had actually no reason to implicate the name of the present applicant in the suicide note. It is further submitted that the chats between the deceased and the applicant itself reveal that it was the deceased who was threatening the complainant and therefore, there was no instigation from the side of the applicant for the deceased to commit suicide. It is also submitted that there is no evidence in the whole of the charge-sheet about the actual cause of death and also that the applicant and the deceased were not in any love relation. It is also submitted that they were only co-attendants in a computer class at Kalol and the girl may have developed a liking for the applicant but there was no such response from the side of the applicant nor had the applicant pursued the deceased.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli submitted that it was the victim girl who wanted to run away from her house and she wanted the applicant to join her and when she proposed marriage with the applicant, it was the applicant who had asked her to bring her parents at his home for the alliance, however, since one cousin brother of the deceased came to know about the relationship and under the fear of the fact getting disclosed, under such pressure and anxiety, it appears that the deceased took the ultimate step of committing suicide. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli has referred to the chats between the deceased and the applicant to stress upon the fact that these chats itself would suggest that it was the deceased who was pressurizing the applicant and that there would be no case for invoking the provision of Section 306 of IPC.

4. To substantiate their arguments, learned advocates appearing for the applicants have referred to the following decisions :-

- Decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Appeal (Crl.) No.572 of 2002, The State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu in Criminal Appeal No.2181 of 2009 and M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in 2020(1) Crime 125 (SC)

- Decision of this Court in the case of Ishwarbhai Sanabhai Nayi (Barber) v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1540

- Decision of the Delhi High Court in the case Varun Bhatia v. State and Another reported in 2013 Cri.L.J.

5. Referring to the above decisions, it is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that a mere relationship discord does not amount to abetment of suicide and stated that the Court in a matter at Mumbai (Nagpur Bench) had referred to Whatsapp Chats to consider the said facts and held that the fact of mere breaking of the relationship would not constitute the abetment of suicide.

6. Contradicting the above arguments, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat assisted by learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda for the complainant have referred to the suicide note of the deceased as well as the chats between the deceased and the applicant where in the suicide note, the deceased has mentioned about the threat given by the applicant and circulating screen shots of the chats in the friends group. It is further submitted that the applicant had no intention to marry and inspite of this relationship, the applicant had decided to enter into some other matrimonial relationship and had threatened to disclose the chats. The applicant h