JUDGMENT :

VIMAL K. VYAS, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – Complainant.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants-accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11190008230070 of 2023 lodged before the Botad Rural Police Station, District Botad, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.55 of 2023.

3. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the impugned FIR, that the deceased husband of the complainant was running a diamond workshop at village Bhambhan, where the present applicant no.1 – accused was working as a labour. It is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant no.1-accused had developed relations with the deceased, and subsequently, under the pretext of love affairs, she and her brother (i.e. the applicant no.2) were demanding Rs.25 lakh from the deceased and also administering threats to kill him if he would not pay them the money. It is further alleged in the FIR that feeling severely distressed and disappointed due to the harassment on the part of the accused persons, the deceased took the drastic step of committing suicide by jumping himself before a running train at the Bhambhan railway track near Lathidad Railway Station on 06.02.2023.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pawan A.Barot appearing for the applicants-accused, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara appearing for the respondent no.2 – Complainant.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Pawan Barot appearing for the applicants-accused has submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the complainant, who is the widow of the deceased, has also filed an affidavit in this regard on 17.07.2025. He has further submitted that the FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicants-accused in the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what had happened soon before the incident.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Barot has submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicants-accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been proved. It is submitted that except the statement of the complainant (who is the wife of the deceased), there is no other evidence to connect the present applicants- accused with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicants-accused, and the FIR, even if it is considered at its face value, the same could not even establish the offence as alleged.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Barot, while taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that except the suicide note, there is no material on record to suggest that the present applicants-accused were demanding money from the deceased or threatening to kill him. Mr.Barot has submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that before committing suicide by the deceased, the applicants- accused had administered any threat or had used abusive language or incited or provoked him. The entire evidence is silent as to what had happened soon before the incident. There is no evidence regarding the monetary transactions and there is no witness. He has, therefore, submitted that simply on the basis of making allegation of mental torture in the FIR, without any direct and proximate act by the applicants-accused, would not be sufficient to constitute the alleged offence.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Barot has submitted that