Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 26035
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA, J
VISHVAPRATAPSINH @ VIPULSINH BHAMMARSINH RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6674 of 2020
MR VISHAL B MEHTA(5319), MR R.K.MANSURI(3205), MR HK PATEL, APP
The court held that vague allegations without specific evidence do not support charges of abetment of suicide, allowing for the quashing of the F.I.R. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 306, 504, 506(2), 114 - Money Lenders Act - Sections 32 and 33(a)(b) - Petition to quash F.I.R. for abetment of suicide and related offences - Allegations against accused No.2 found to be general and lacking specific evidence; no abetment established - Previous quashment of F.I.R. for other accused with similar roles noted. (Paras 1, 7, 9)
(B) Abuse of Process - Court emphasized that proceedings based on vague allegations without specific evidence constitute an abuse of process of law. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.2, sought to quash an F.I.R. alleging abetment of suicide due to harassment over loan repayment. The petitioner claimed no involvement in lending or demanding money, and the parties had settled amicably.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of abetment or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences, leading to the quashing of the F.I.R.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted abetment under IPC and if the F.I.R. was an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without specific allegations or evidence, the F.I.R. against the petitioner was baseless, aligning with precedents that protect against malicious prosecution.
Result: The petition is allowed; the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the applicant-original accused No.2, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.I-11209054200050 of 2020 registered with Vadali Police Station, Sabarkantha, for the offences under Sections 306, 504 , 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 32 and 33(a)(b) of the Money Lenders Act along with all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that respondent No.2-original complainant filed complaint against the accused persons including the present petitioner alleging that husband of the complainant borrowed money from the accused No.1 on interest and when some of the installments could not be repaid by her husband, accused had started threatening her husband and constantly harassed him, due to which, the husband of the complainant committed suicide by consuming poison.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Jagirdar for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law. Learned advocate further submitted that petitioner is accused No.2 who has neither lended nor demanded any money from the deceased. Even there is no specific allegation made against the present petitioner in the entire F.I.R. Learned advocate further submitted that there is no ingredients for the offence under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code .
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that even parties have amicably settled the issue by way of mutual settlement.
3.2 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the present petition as prayed for.
4. Learned advocate Mr.R.K. Mansuri for respondent No.2 submitted that as such the parties have amicably settled the issue.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.H.K. Patel appearing for the respondent-State opposed the present petition and contended that, the petitioner has lended money on a higher rate of interest and frequently threatened the deceased to recover his money and thereby, induced to commit suicide. Therefore, present petition may not be allowed.
6. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Jagirdar submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 approached this Court for quashment of the impugned F.I.R. by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10484 of 2021, which came to be allowed by order dated 24 th November, 2021. He further submitted that even accused No.6 also approached this Court for quashment of the impugned F.I.R. by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6238 of 2020 which also came to be allowed vide order dated 16 th August, 2024.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and on going through the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it appears that the complaint is filed against in all seven accused persons, out of which F.I.R. is already quashed for accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
7.1 In the instant case, ingredients of Section 306, IPC are not attracted against the present petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is abetment at the instance of the present petitioner so as to see that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. Thus, when the basic ingredients of Section 107, IPC is absent, there is no question of committing any offence under Section 306.
7.2 Further, considering the role of the applicant and perusing the contents of the F.I.R., if the allegations made against the present petitioner are accepted as it is, there is nothing to invoke the provisions of Section 107 of the IPC . Oral dying declaration given before his brother is a weak piece of evidence and it could not be safely presumed that there is ample evidence of abetment.
7.3 So far as offence under the Money Lenders Act is concerned, the petitioner has not lended
