JUDGMENT :

Vimal K. Vyas, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant- accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11198042201089 of 2020 lodged before the Palitana Town Police Station, Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as, the Charge-sheet No.22 of 2021 and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1420 of 2021 pending before the learned Magistrate at Palitana.

3. The factual matrix of the case may be summarised as under :

3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased – husband of the complainant, who was engaged in a construction business, was facing financial crunch, therefore, he had borrowed some funds from seven accused persons including the present applicant, and when the deceased failed to repay the debt or respond adequately, the applicant is alleged to have reportedly made persistent demands for repayment of his dues along with interest. It is further alleged that the applicant had also threatened the deceased with serious consequences for non- payment of his dues. Therefore, feeling severely distressed and disappointed due to the persistent demands made by the applicant-accused for repayment of the dues along with interest, the deceased, out of desperation and persistent harassment, took his own life by hanging on 04.11.2020, leaving behind a suicide note (a ‘writing in the book’).

3.2 On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Smit D.Patel appearing for the applicant-accused and learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the respondent – State.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Smit D.Patel appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that the impugned FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false as there is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant-accused in the alleged offence. Mr.Patel has submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicant-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 implicate the present applicant-accused with the alleged offence. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has further submitted that except for naming the applicant in the suicide note, there are no details about any monetary transaction between the deceased and the present applicant-accused. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that simply referring the name of the applicant in the suicide note and making allegation of mental torture in the FIR by the complainant, without any direct and proximate act by the applicant-accused, would not be sufficient to constitute the alleged offence. It is submitted that neither there is any evidence regarding the monetary transaction nor any witness to it. Furthermore, the prosecution has also remained silent as to what had happened immediately preceding the incident.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that the prosecution has also not proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). He further submits that the record is conspicuously silent on the requisite elements of ‘mens rea’ and 'instigation' as mandated by Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). It is submitted that except the suicide note (a ‘