The court held that mere familial pressure or demands are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; active instigation must be proven for liability under IPC Sections 306 and 107.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.1 - 29 of 2017 registered with Junagadh "A" Division Police Station, for the offences punishable under S.306, S.114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

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

2.1 An FIR is lodged by respondent No.2 - original complainant with the case that any time before 02.02.2017, an FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2 original complainant who happens to be the father of the deceased in short, with a case that original accused No.1, who happens to be the wife of the deceased and the petitioners are the near relatives were instrumental in causing torture to his son under two pretexts, firstly, the accused persons after the marriage of the deceased with original accused No.1, they have pressurized the deceased to leave her parents and join them in their house and stay with them, secondly, since deceased had, out of his wedlock, a son, accused persons were not permitting the deceased to meet his own son, during his marital span of two years. In short, the FIR is lodged with a case that on account of such constant and consistent torture caused to the deceased for leaving his parents and not letting him meet his own son, it so happened that on an unfaithful day, i.e., on 02.02.2017, the date of incident, deceased who was serving as an Armed Constable at Junagadh, he committed suicide in the guesthouse of P.T.C., Junagadh by hanging himself inside such place, for which 306, 114 of Indian Penal Code offences are lodged in all against six of the accused persons, out of which, original accused Nos.2 to 6 are before this Honourable Court in capacity of relatives of wife of the deceased.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot would mainly submit that the incident took place on 2.2.2017, but the FIR has been lodged on 9.3.2017, after giving a well thought to the alleged incident. He would further submit that the FIR is delayed by one and half months, which is registered for the offences punishable under S.306 and S.114 of the IPC. He would further submit that the FIR is a well designed FIR and filed to rope the present petitioners who have not played any active or passive role in commission of the alleged offence. Taking this court through the contents of the FIR, learned advocate Mr. Barot would submit that it is mainly alleged in the FIR that the deceased husband was instigated by his wife or her relatives for living separately from his parents, and such kind of allegations are persistently written in the entire FIR. He would further submit that along with the allegation of living separately from the parents, it is further alleged that the deceased was pressurized to live as resident son - in - law and to give Rs. 10,00,00 towards giving divorce.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Barot would further submit that the present petitioners are the relatives of accused No.1 Divya. He would further submit that no specific incidents are stated in the FIR, which indicates that the present petitioners have ever resided in common roof or they were living together at any point of time, which may meet with the allegation of instigation meted out to the deceased, which is necessary for committing suicide. He would further submit that if the FIR is taken on its face val