JUDGMENT :

VIMAL K. VYAS, J. 

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla 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 applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11210045240774 of 2024 lodged before the Pandesara Police Station, Surat city, for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.654 of 2024 pending before the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

3. The prosecution’s case, as set out in the FIR, is that the deceased (the complainant’s father), who was an employee of ‘Rameshkumar Kantilal Patel’, a courier firm, had advanced an amount of Rs.1.5 crore to the applicant-accused, and when the deceased sought repayment, the applicant-accused refused to return it and issued threats. Therefore, feeling severely distressed and disappointed due to the refusal by the applicant-accused in returning his amount, the deceased took the drastic step of committing suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan at around 2:00 p.m. on 29.01.2024.

4. It is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that on 28.01.2024 (i.e. a day preceding the occurrence), the applicant-accused had spoken with his father six times on his mobile phone, and on 29.01.2024 (i.e. on the day of occurrence), there were six missed calls by the applicant-accused, but his father did not answer. Furthermore, it is alleged by the complainant that two days prior to the incident, his father had told him that he had borrowed money from some relatives and had given it as an advance to the applicant-accused; however, when he demanded the money back, the applicant-accused refused to repay.

5. It is also alleged by the complainant that on the day of the occurrence, a suicide note (a ‘chit’) was found from the pocket of the deceased, wherein the deceased has stated that he is committing suicide as the applicant-accused Raju Jain has taken away Rs.1.5 crore from him.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kishan H.Daiya appearing for the applicant-accused, learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara appearing for the respondent no.2 – Complainant.

7. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Kishan Daiya appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the complainant, who is the son of the deceased, has also filed an affidavit in this regard on 02.02.2026. Learned advocate Mr.Daiya 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 applicant-accused in the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what had happened immediately preceding the incident.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Daiya 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 son of the deceased), there is no other evidence to connect the present applicant-accused with the alleged offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicant-accused, and the FIR, even if it is considered at its face value, the same could not even establish the offence as alleged.

9. While taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, learned advocate Mr.Daiya has submitted that, except the suicide note (a ‘chit’), there is no material on record to suggest that the deceased had given Rs.1.5 crore to the applicant-accused