JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, below Exh:6 and thereby discharge the applicants from the Sessions Case No.93/2017.

2) Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent – State and Mr. Raxit J. Dholakia, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3) Brief facts narrated in the complaint are that the applicants accused are employees of the Government of India i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), whereas, the deceased Chhotabhai Dhulabhai Parmar was also working with the BSNL from 1983 onward and was transferred to Uttarsanda Telephone Exchange in the year 1996. The said deceased Chhotabhai died on 29.07.2008 due to consuming poison and found near Railway Crossing, Uttarsanda in a position, wherein he had consumed poison and therefore he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nadiad in ambulance and thereafter, he was taken to Maha Gujarat, Hospital, where he was declared dead. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased decided to end his life due to harassment from the accused herein as the accused were giving memos to the deceased time and again in view of official work, and therefore the deceased remained under tension, which compelled him to commit suicide. Pursuant to the same, FIR being C.R. No.137/2009 was registered at Chaklasi Police Station, under Sections 306, 106, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. Charge sheet came to be filed. The applicants thereafter Misc Criminal Application No.14173 of 2009 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn by the accused with a liberty to file discharge application before the trial Court. In view of the said liberty granted by this Court, the applicants preferred an application for discharge, which was dismissed by learned trail Court.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, no ingredients of abetment to commit suicide or any evidence, directly or indirectly, suggest the involvement of the applicants. The applicants - accused have not incited the deceased for committing suicide, and no ingredients of Sections 306, 106 and 109 of the IPC are made out. Based on the statement of relatives, no offense is made out qua abetment. It clearly reveals that the deceased was an employee of BSNL, and as per the office record, no single memo or charge sheet was issued to the deceased. It is further submitted that the complainant only issued a correspondence on 1/4/2008, which was also subsequently sent to the office. Merely one employee of BSNL, Mr. Kamlesh has given a statement that accused No.2 was a superior officer and has given 10 to 12 memos and used to harass other subordinate employees, having no relevance to the case of the applicants. Merely the applicants were superior officers, and due to this reason, it cannot be said that they have instigated the deceased, being subordinate and incited him to commit suicide. The accused have performed their official duty in the Government hierarchy; being a higher officer is required to take/supervise the subordinate staff and to take work from them. Hence, in such submissions, learned Counsel for the applicants have submitted that the present revision application be allowed as prayed for.

5) Learned advocate for the complainant has strongly opposed the present application and submitted that the case is not a simple case of mere subordination or routine workplace issues. It is contended that the involvement of the applicants is clearly borne out from the material collected during the investigation. It is further submitted that the deceased had been serving with BSNL since 1983 and was transferred to Uttarsanda in the year 1986. The deceased ultima