Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J
NARENDARSINH SAMRATBHAI VAGHELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 20861 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ASHISH M DAGLI
For the Respondents: MR BN LIMBACHIA, MR JAY MEHTA
The absence of proximate instigation renders allegations under IPC section 306 insufficient to sustain an FIR for abetment of suicide.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 107 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner sought to quash FIR connected with suicide due to gambling debts - Court observed essential ingredients under section 306 are missing - No instigation evident - Previous judgments highlighted the necessity of proximate act for abetment - Petition allowed, FIR quashed. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 10, 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Exercise of extraordinary powers - High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 to quash FIR only when it is evident that the FIR does not disclose any offence. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced an FIR under IPC Sections related to abetment of suicide, wherein circumstances were linked to gambling debts and alleged threats to the deceased. The Court noted the lack of proximate instigation leading to the suicide.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the FIR did not establish essential elements of the alleged offence of abetment of suicide, thus justifying quashing.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC regarding abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of any direct or proximate act instigating the deceased to commit suicide was pivotal in the Court's reasoning, reinforcing that mere circumstances do not constitute abetment. The decision underscored that liability requires clear evidence of instigating behavior that led directly to the act of suicide.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed and all consequential proceedings set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing fir under section 482 of crpc requires absence of essential elements of the alleged offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court emphasized the need for clear instigation for abetment to establish grounds for legal action. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal precedent guides the exercise of quashing powers to protect against frivolous prosecutions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final ruling permits quashing of fir lacking necessary legal foundation. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 49 of 2017 registered with Bopal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 ,114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate Mr Dagli, for the petitioner referring to the FIR in question would submit that the minor dispute has entailed in major result of suicide by the deceased. He would further submit that according to the FIR, the complainant is in habit of playing gambling of Satta in the market and ultimately, while doing so, he lost substantial amount and because of that, he has taken extreme step of suicide. He would further submit that essential ingredients of offence under section 306 of the IPC are completely missing in the present case. He would for the submit that there is no instigation, which lead the deceased to commit suicide.
3. To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dagli has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Pinkiben Soni vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.1790 of 2014, in case of Chimanlal Makwana vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.2772 of 2010 and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Swamy Prahladdas vs. State of MP and others, 1995 Supplimentary (3) SCC 438.
4. The above submission is made by learned advocate Mr Dagli to allow the petition.
5. 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.
6. Learned APP, adopting the argument of learned advocate for the private respondent, requests to pass necessary order.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent as well as learned APP would submit that the CD collected during investigation recorded talks between the petitioner and the deceased which indicates that the petitioner has threatened to pay back the amount or to face dire consequences. In addition thereto, learned APP would submit that the video spectrography report matches the voice of the petitioner and therefore, prima facie case is made out. Taking the submission as it is on its face value, it appears that the talks between the petitioner and the deceased happened at least 15 days prior to the incident and therefore, it cannot be presumed that said talk between the petitioner and the deceased prompted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no proximate act established by way of FIR, which indicates result of committing suicide by the deceased.
8. The main factor for abetment of thing is that the prosecution needed to prove to instigates any person to do particular thing, omission or illegal omission for doing that thing. In the present case, this Court does not find any essential ingredients of section 107 of the IPC, which can even prima facie be proved on reading the FIR.
9. Be that as
