Abetment of suicide requires clear evidence of positive instigation and a proximate link between the accused's acts and the suicide. Lawful initiation of legal proceedings or recovery notices does not constitute criminal abetment, and such prosecutions warrant quashing to prevent abuse of the legal process.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1 The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the FIR registered with Jetpur City Police Station, Rajkot Rural, being I-C.R. No.11213022211360 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused. Out of the said accused, accused No.2, namely Hasmukhlal Amrutlal Barot, has expired during the pendency of the present application, and therefore, the proceedings qua him stand abated.

2 As per the allegations made in the FIR, the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had instigated the deceased to commit suicide by filing false cases against him. It is further alleged that the deceased left a suicide note in a Creta car, wherein the names of all the accused persons, along with their mobile numbers and their respective roles in instigating the deceased, were mentioned.

3 Heard learned advocates Ekant Ahuja and Mr.J.L.Chan for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt for respondent No.2.

4 Learned advocate Mr. Ahuja submits that prior to the present FIR, an FIR being No.11216009210509 came to be lodged on 03.09.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the deceased as well as his family members. It is submitted that as per the allegations in the said FIR, which was lodged by one Mr. Manharbhai @ Tanabhai, who is arraigned as accused No.3 in the present impugned FIR, under the pretext of developing an industrial park, the deceased and his family members had collected substantial amounts from villagers belonging to the same community, and thereafter failed to fulfill their promises and allegedly siphoned off an amount of Rs.3,81,50,000/-. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Ajuha that the present applicant, along with his brothers, was arrested in connection with the said FIR, and the father of the deceased expired in custody. It is submitted that when the deceased committed suicide, he had been released on temporary bail and was required to surrender on 09.10.2021; however, he committed suicide on 06.10.2021.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ahuja submits that there is no proximate link between the alleged act of instigation and the commission of suicide. It is contended that accused No.3 had merely initiated recovery proceedings by lodging a complaint, and the same has been projected as instigation to commit suicide by the deceased. It is further submitted that even the references made to each of the accused in the FIR do not disclose any act of instigation; rather, the FIR lodged for the offences under Section 420 and other allied provisions, pursuant to which the deceased was arrested and suspended from service, appears to be the real cause for the suicide. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Ajuha none of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied, and in the absence of the same, continuation of proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4.2 Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812, Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023), as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Pavan Maheshbhai Sharma vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Misc. Application No.18933 of 2020), learned advocate Mr. Ahuja submits that where the deceased commits suicide due to pressure from creditors for repayment of amounts collected by him and his family members, such circumstances cannot be construed as intentional instigation by the applicants so as to attract criminal liability. In that view of the matter, it is prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed by allowing the present application.

5 Learned advoca