JUDGMENT :

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.Abhishek Khuman waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – original complainant.

2. By way of preferring the present applications under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the present applicants (i.e. the original accused nos.2 and 3) seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, below application Exhibit 6 in Sessions Case No.67 of 2022; as well as, the order dated 01.10.2025 passed below the Charge (Exh.9) in Sessions Case No.67 of 2022.

3. The impugned FIR bearing CR.No.11217020220277 of 2022 came to be lodged by the complainant (who is the sone of the deceased) against the present applicants-accused before the B-Division Police Station, Patan city, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(1), 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as, under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

4. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, who is the son of the deceased, had lodged the impugned FIR before the B-Division Police Station, Patan city, inter alia, stating that in the year 2017-2018, his father (i.e. the deceased) had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh @ 10% interest from the accused no.1, Amratbhai Desai, and a loan of Rs.1 lakh @ 10% interest from the accused no.3, Dharamsinhbhai Taljabhai Desai. The complainant further stated that although the loan amounts were repaid by his father to the accused, they were still demanding more money and threatening to implicate him in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by depositing the cheques given to them by his father towards the security of the loan amounts advanced to his father. It is alleged by the complainant that a day preceding the incident, i.e. on 06.04.2022 at around 9:27 a.m., the accused no.1 had called and threatened the complainant, demanding either to repay the debt or vacate the society. Therefore, the complainant had informed about the same to his father, who, in turn, told him that he has already repaid the entire amount to the accused persons, and they are mentally torturing him. It is alleged that due to the severe mental torture inflicted by the accused persons, his father committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 07.04.2022 at around 12:30 in the midnight. The deceased was rushed to the hospital at Dharpur, where, he died during the treatment.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara for Mr.Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused, learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Khuman appearing for the respondent no.2 – complainant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS-ACCUSED :

6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Mahesh Poojara appearing for the applicants-accused has submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the complainant, namely, Parikshit Kanjibhai Rabari (i.e. the son of the deceased) has also filed an affidavit substantiating the said fact.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Poojara has 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 with the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what had happened soon before the incident. Mr.Poojara has further 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 the postmortem report suggests that the deceased had died due to cardiac arrest and the viscera report shows no sign of any poisonous substance. Furthermore, except the