Gujarat High Court
Prakash Chandulal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 19 August, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO.6506 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.5318 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.5330 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.5460 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
PRAKASH CHANDULAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance :
Criminal Misc. Application No.6506 of 2022
MR DEVANG VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR KUNAL VYAS,
DEVARSH TRIVEDI AND NITYA JOSHI for the Applicants.
MR RONAK RAVAL WITH MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.
MR PRATIK JASANI for the Respondent No.2.
Criminal Misc. Application No.5318 of 2022
MR RASHESH SANJANWALA, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR KUNAL
VYAS, DEVARSH TRIVEDI AND NITYA JOSHI for the Applicants.
MR RONAK RAVAL WITH MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.
MR PRATIK JASANI for the Respondent No.2.
Criminal Misc. Application No.5330 of 2022
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR KUNAL VYAS,
DEVARSH TRIVEDI AND NITYA JOSHI for the Applicant.
MR RONAK RAVAL WITH MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.
MR PRATIK JASANI for the Respondent No.2.
Criminal Misc. Application No.5460 of 2022
Page 1 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
MR N. D. NANAVATY, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR YASH NANAVATY,
SIDDHARTH H. DAVE & NILAY A. THAKER for the Applicants.
MR RONAK RAVAL WITH MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1.
MR PRATIK JASANI for the Respondent No.2.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 19/08/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since all these matters arise out of the common FIR, all
the matters were tagged together and accordingly, with the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
the same were taken up for final hearing together. Hence, Rule.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on
behalf of respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik
Jasani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – first
informant in all these petitions.
2. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), seeking to quash
and set aside the impugned FIR bearing I – C. R.
No.11208003220478 of 2022 registered with Gandhigram-2
(University) Police Station, Rajkot City under Sections 306,
406, 420, 506 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Criminal Misc. Application No.5460 of 2022 is
preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 whereas Criminal Misc.
Application No.5330, 5318 and 6506 of 2022 are preferred by
accused Nos.4 to 7. The case pleaded by accused Nos.4 to 7 is that
they stand entirely on different footing as they were Partners of a
newly formed Company, namely, Ozone Tuscany Private Limited
and the original amount allegedly invested by the deceased
Page 2 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
belonging to his friends and relatives were invested with the old
Company, namely, Key West Developers which was owned by
accused Nos.1 to 3 and at the time when the amount was invested
by the deceased, accused Nos.4 to 7 were not the partners of old
Company. In this backdrop, the impugned FIR is required to be
considered.
4. As per the impugned FIR dated 2.3.2022 registered at
20.30 hours by one Priyank Mahendrabhai Faldu alleging offence
under Sections 306, 406, 420, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code which was committed in the afternoon at around 12.01. In
the said FIR, it is alleged that he owns an office, namely, Kalpataru
Properties and doing the business since 2012. As per the FIR, the
deceased Mahendrabhai Keshavlal Faldu strangulated himself in
his office at around 10 a.m. on 2.3.2022 and at the time when the
unfortunate incident happened, he was at his residence and upon
receiving the aforesaid news, he along with his mother and other
relatives reached the office and called ambulance and upon
reaching the office, he saw that his father had strangulated himself
with the fan and he was ultimately taken to Hospital where he was
declared dead. On the table of the office, there was an instruction
written on a piece of paper and as per the instruction, when the
first informant took the mobile of his deceased father and switched
on Internet data, the suicide note prepared by his deceased father
was shared with all the concerned persons. As per the FIR, the
father of the applicant, namely, Mahendra Keshavbhai Faldu
booked around 1 Lac Sq. Yds. of land for himself as well as for his
relative Vinaykant Thobhanbhai Faldu, uncle Rameshbhai and
Shaileshbhai and other relatives upon making payment of Rs.3
Crores in the year 2007 in a scheme, namely, The Tuscany Beach
Page 3 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
City, situated at village Baldana, Tal. Bavla, Dist. Ahmedabad. The
aforesaid project was developed by one Key West Developers who
initially had three Directors / Partners, namely, M. M. Patel, Amit J.
Chauhan and Atul Mehta (accused Nos.1 to 3) and thereafter, in
the aforesaid Project, four persons from the Ozone Group, namely,
Dipak M. Patel, Pranay K. Patel, Jayesh K. Patel and Prakash
Chandulal Patel (accused Nos.4 to 7) joined as Partners. As per the
FIR, in the aforesaid project, though the father of the first
informant had made full payment towards the land purchased and
despite making numerous requests to the Partners of the Firm to
execute the Sale Deed, as they were not executing and they were
threatening the deceased person to enter into settlement by other
means, considering the fact that on whose behalf the deceased had
booked the land, out of those persons, three to four persons had
already died and, therefore, when the accused persons were
requested to return the aforesaid amount, they did not return the
aforesaid amount nor executed Sale Deed and, therefore, the
persons on whose behalf the deceased had invested the amount,
were harassing the deceased persons physically and mentally.
5. As per the FIR, some police case was filed against the
uncle of the first informant Shailesh Faldu and as the father of the
first informant was also threatened of police complaint and thereby
was given mental harassment to the father of the first informant,
upon inquiry, the first informant came to know about all these facts
from his father and it was stated in the FIR that on account of these
persons only (applicants herein), the father of the first informant
had committed suicide. Therefore, the FIR was registered against
the present applicants, seven in number.
Page 4 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
6. Upon registration of FIR on 2.3.2022, all the accused
persons except Prakash Chandulal Patel preferred three different
petitions being Criminal Misc. Application No.5330 of 2022,
Criminal Misc. Application No.5318 of 2022 and Criminal Misc.
Application No.5460 of 2022 wherein the coordinate Bench of this
Court passed the order on 17.3.2022 and protected accused Nos.1
to 6 by passing an order permitting IO / Investigating Agency to
continue with the investigation but protected the applicants by
directing that there shall be no coercive action be taken against the
applicants.
7. Thereafter, another co-accused, accused No.7, namely,
Prakash Chandulal Patel preferred Criminal Misc. Application
No.6506 of 2022 wherein by reproducing the above referred entire
order dated 7.3.2022, another coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 7.4.2022 issued notice qua the said co-accused and
granted similar relief in his favour and directed to hear all the
matters together.
8. That is how all the accused are enjoying protection ever
since 17.3.2022 and 7.4.2022 respectively, though investigation
was not stayed.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, all these petitions were
heard on 12.8.2024 and 13.8.2024 and vide order dated 13.8.2025,
the matter was kept for orders to today.
10. The glaring difference between the situation
prevailing at the time when the matters were heard for
admission hearing and now at the stage of final hearing is
Page 5 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
that at the initial stage in the year 2022, the first informant –
original complainant opposed the petition tooth and nail and
objected to grant of any relief in favour of accused persons.
However, by passage of time, it seems that there was a
change of heart in respect of first informant i.e. Priyank
Mahendrabhai Faldu who filed an affidavit on 2.5.2024 i.e.
more than a year before the matter was taken up for hearing
and stated that upon realizing the true facts that there was
no any proximity between the incident occurred on
02.03.2022 and the transaction of property, which has taken
place in the year 2007, there is no any willful act or omission
or intentional aid or instigation by the petitioner to the
deceased to commit an act of suicide. Therefore, after
detailed discussion with all my family members, we have
voluntarily decided to not go on further with the impugned
criminal proceeding against all the accused persons and
thus, it was stated in the affidavit that he voluntarily
expressed his no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed
and set aside against the petitioners. The entire affidavit
dated 2.5.2025 reads thus :-
“I Priyank S/o Mahendrabhai Faldu – Patel, Male,
Age About 29 years, Residing At: Anjani Tower, Flat
No. 801, 8 Floor, Nr. Indira Circle, 150ft. Ring
Road, Rajkot, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as under :-
1. I am the first informant — respondent no. 2,
in connection with the petition filed by the
petitioner. I am fully conversant with the facts and
circumstance of the case. That after realizing truePage 6 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
facts, I am filing the present affidavit to secure the
end of justice.
2. I say that I have gone through the memo of
petition and the facts as also grounds stated in the
memo of the petition. That immediately after the
occurrence of incident, on. the very same day the
impugned FIR was given. That I was shocked
because of such sudden incident. Hence, the
impugned FIR was lodged out of impulse and
misunderstanding, which has been now removed
and resolved.
3. I voluntarily submits that because of passage
of time, I realize true facts that there was no any
proximity between the incident occurred on 02-03-
2022 and the transaction of property, which has
taken place in the year 2007, as alleged in the
impugned FIR. It appears that there is no any
willful act or omission or intentional aid or
instigation by the petitioner to the deceased to
commit an act of suicide. Therefore, after detailed
discussion with all my family members, we have
voluntarily decided to not go on further with the
impugned criminal proceeding against all the
accused persons. Thus, I voluntarily express my
no objection, if, the impugned FIR is quashed and
set aside against the petitioners.
4. That I have gone through factual assertion
made in the memo of petition. That all such
contentions are not disputed by me. At the outset I
say and submit that there is no any further disputes
or grievances exists with the petitioners and I do
Page 7 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
not wish to prosecute the petitioners any further
with respect to the FIR fled by me, registered as
Crime Register No. I –11208003220478 of 2022,
lodged with the Gandhigram-2 (University) Police
Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable U/s.
306,406,420,506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as well as other consequential
proceedings if any, arising therefrom.
5. I say that due to intervention of the elder
family members of the answering respondent and
after due deliberation with all the family members, I
realize my misunderstanding that, there is no
proximity between the occurrence of incident with
the transaction as alleged in the impugned FIR and
there is no such evidence available involving the
accused persons in the impugned offence. Hence, a
collective decision was taken by the family
members to not go on with the impugned criminal
proceeding in the interest of justice as the
continuance of such criminal proceeding would be
futile of exercise. In view of above, have agreed to
give consent for quashing of impugned FIR and
other proceedings. Thus, I do not want to prosecute
the impugned FIR and other proceedings against
the petitioners any further.
6. In the facts and circumstances as narrated
above, I at my free will, wish and desire am stating
on oath that I do not wish to prosecute the
impugned criminal proceedings with petitioners as
the dispute between us has been amicably settled in
the afore said manner.
Page 8 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
7. I submit that I have no objection if the first
information report given by me as well as other
criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the said
FIR is quash by this Hon’ble Court.
8. That this affidavit is filed as per my wish and
will and without any influence by anyone and I have
submitted the true facts before this Hon’ble Court.”
11. I am conscious that in such a serious offence registered
under Section 306 along with the other relevant Sections of the
Indian Penal Code, consent quashing would not be permissible and,
therefore, the Court is required to consider the matter on its own
merits. However, I have reproduced the entire affidavit of the first
informant just with a view to place on record the change of heart of
the first informant and how the things have changed in the
interregnum period as the conduct of the first informant at the time
in the year 2022, at the time of admission hearing and when the
matter was taken up for final hearing in the year 2025 was
completely different. Therefore, though the aforesaid affidavit is
there on record, for the time being, when the learned counsel
argued on merits, I am ignoring the aforesaid affidavit.
12. In light of the above facts, the matters were argued.
13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. D. Nanavaty with
learned advocate Mr. Yash Nanavaty appearing for the applicants –
accused Nos.1 to 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5460 of 2022
made following submissions :-
13.1 That the deceased Mahendrabhai and his immediate
including HUF had invested only Rs.8,74,000/- from their pocket. ItPage 9 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
is also undisputed fact that the deceased person was engaged in
various activities of construction, developing the property, activity
of purchase & sale of the property, etc. That the deceased was also
the Chairman of Kalpataru Credit Society, from which he has taken
huge loan amount. It is also revealed from the record that the
deceased person has taken huge amount from a different person
including different Bank which would amount to crores of rupees.
That The FIR as also the alleged suicide note even if taken on the
face value, the same does not disclose any such ingredients of
Section 107 of the IPC. There is no proximity, there is no any aiding
or instigation on the part the accused persons. There is no any
motive to instigate to committee the suicide. That the deceased was
having an option to institute a civil proceedings seeking recovery of
an amount or to file a suit seeking specific performance. So, it
cannot be said that deceased was not having any option to commit
suicide, because of any such omission on the part of the accused
persons. In fact, there is no any illegal omission. Hence, no prima
facie case is made out as far as offence of 306 of IPC is concerned.
13.2 That as far as offence U/s. 406,420 of IPC is concerned,
which is compoundable and even otherwise also, for the
investment which is made in the year 2007, the impugned FIR is
lodged in the year 2022, there is no any misrepresentation made
nor there is any allegation in the FIR that the victim was duped
from the very inception. Therefore, the essential ingredients of
offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating are also absent and
hence, on the ground of delay, the same is required to be quashed
in view of the provision of Section 468 of Cr. P. C. That the FIR
reflects two incident only, first is the date of investment in the year
2007 and second is in the year 2022 when the deceased had
committed suicide. There is no any other averments made in the
Page 10 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
FIR.
13.3 As far as the suicide note is concerned, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the deceased Mahendrabhai
started typing of a notice on 28.02.2022, which was subsequently
turned into a suicide note. That after two days i.e. on 2 nd March,
2022, he committed suicide. It appears from bare reading of
paragraph no.2 of the suicide note that deceased wanted to get the
current market value of the property and he was not ready to pay
the remaining amount to get the registered sale deed executed in
his favour, because it is an admitted position that he did not pay
the full consideration for execution of Registered Sale Deed. That
averment made in paragraph no.4 of the alleged suicide note,
clearly go to envisage that none of the accused have met the
deceased person. Neither there was any phone call nor there was
any other communication between the deceased and the accused
persons. There is no any averments which would go to show that
there was any act of instigation on the part of the accused persons
or any close proximity to the act of committing suicide. There is no
any averment either in the suicide note or in the IFR, with regard to
any mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. That the
situation was also not such that there was no any other option but to
commit suicide for alleged non execution of sale deed. The plot are
which was reserved by booking was always available with the
accused persons. He could have instituted a civil proceedings.
Therefore, it is not the case that there was no any such option with
the deceased person and because of the illegal omission, he
committed suicide.
13.4 That the averment made in the paragraph 5 in the
suicide note clearly go to indicate that the deceased was very much
Page 11 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
dissatisfied with the situation, which was prevailing at that relevant
point of time, because of threats and harassment of the unknown
person as specifically mentioned in the said paragraph. That bare
reading of the contents, dose not satisfy that there was any aid of
doing of a thing or there was any instigation on the part of the
accused person. That there is no mens rea for the commission of the
offence of 306. Therefore the necessary ingredients of section 107 of
IPC are absent. That it prima facie appears on bare perusal of the
suicide note that on account of great disturbance to the psychology
imbalance of the deceased person. It further revels that the
deceased person was unable to control sentiments of expectations.
However, this would not amount to commission of an offence under
S e c t i o n 306 as has been held by this Court in the case of A. K.
Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (3) GLH
444 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
delivered on 1.5.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2002.
13.5 That there was no any illegal act done by the accused
persons. The only omission as alleged is that the accused have not
executed the sale deed in favour of deceased person. However, fact
remain that he neither has paid the remaining amount for execution of
registered sale deed not he was ready to accept his invested amount
back. Otherwise his sister in law and other relatives have accepted the
amount back with some appreciation on amount of booking. That
there was an option with the deceased to institute a civil proceedings
either seeking of an amount or to seek specific performance by filing a
suit. Admittedly not a single notice was issued by the deceased
person. It is also an admitted position that there was no any pressure
from the developers to pay the remaining amount within any
stipulated time. There was no any instructions form the developer that
Page 12 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
they will not execute the registered sale deed in case of any delay
payment. Land was always available with the accused persons.
Therefore, there is no question of any instigation or any illegal
omission as alleged at all even as per the suicide note.
13.6 That in the FIR, it is mentioned that they have paid an
amount of Rs.3 Crores in the year 2007. However, the fact remains
that the deceased person, his son, wife and HUF all they have paid
an amount of Rs.8,74,000/- only in the year 2007-08. It appears that
they without paying full and final amount, wanted to get the
Registered Sale Deed executed or wanted a market rate value back
which is not permissible in the eye of law. That there cannot be any
mens rea to abate for commission of suicide. Therefore, in absence
of any mens rea or any aid in committing suicide, merely because
the sale deed is not executed by developers, does not indicate that
they have instigated or abated an offence of 306 of IPC. It appears
from the record that deceased had obtained huge loan from
different bank / credit societies by mortgaging his properties,
which he could not repay. That to repay the said huge loan amount
of crores of rupees, he has availed unsecured loan from different
individuals as is evident from the record of transcripts. That from
that amount he has repaid some of such bank / credit societies loan
before four to six months of occurrence of alleged incident. It
further appears that he could not repay the amount to many such
individuals and there was a threat / harassment from those persons
as mentioned even in the suicide note. Otherwise, there was no any
representation or any aid for committing suicide from the accused
side. That fhe first informant and his near family have decided to
file FIR only on the basis of the suicide note which was found
without verifying anything. That on verification, they realized that
there was no any such instigation or omission on the part of the
Page 13 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
accused person. Therefore, they have decided to give true facts by
way of filing an affidavit. As is evident from the affidavit, any
continuance of further proceedings would be a futile excise and the
same would amount to abuse of process. Therefore, to secure an
end of justice, the impugned FIR m a y b e be quashed and set
aside by this Court.
13.7 In support of the above submissions, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Nanavaty relied upon the following decisions :-
(i) Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram
District &Anr. – 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 987.
(ii) R. Shashirekha Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. – 2025
SCC ONLINE SC 671.
(iii) Ayyub & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – (2025) 3
SCC 334.
(iv) Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4
SCC 801.
(v) Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
(2024) 3 SCC 655.
(vi) Mohit Singhal and another v. State of Uttarakhand and
others, (2024) 1 SCC 417.
(vii) Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,
Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.7284 of 2017.
(viii) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2021) 19
SCC 144.
(ix) Sanjay Kanakmal Agarwal v. The State of Gujarat, Criminal
Misc. Application No.19305 of 2020.
(x) Maheshbhai Dhirubhai Darji v. State of Gujarat and another,
Criminal Misc. Application No.25398 of 2017.
(xi) Devendra Kumar Baleshwar Prasad Rastogi and and others v.
Page 14 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
State of Gujarat and another, 2016 SCC ONLINE Guj 6045.
(xii) Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC
ONLINE GUJ 1189.
(xiii) Pravinbhai Jivrambhai Deria and others v. State of Gujarat and
others, (2023) 3 GLH 302.
(xiv) Kamaluddin Mohammad Ilyas Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, 2023
SCC ONLINE GUJ 4061.
(xv) Jaydipkumar Dashrathbhai Patel and another v. State of
Gujarat and another, 2024 SCC ONLINE GUJ 2283.
(xvi) Sachin Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and another, 2024 SCC
ONLINE ALL 295.
14. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, Learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Devang Vyas with learned advocate Mr. Kunal Vyas for Gandhi
Law Associates appearing for accused Nos.4 to 7 in Criminal Misc.
Application Nos.6506 of 2022, 5330 of 2022 and 5318 of 2022 have
made the following submissions :-
14.1 That in the year 2007, alleged payment of Rs. 3 crores
made by the deceased and several other people to Key West
Developers for The Tuscany Beach Sea / City Project. That on
7.12.2009, Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated to undertake
a fresh project i.e. Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. That on 2.3.2022, the
deceased committed suicide at Rajkot. From the above chronology,
it is submitted that the allegations made in the impugned FIR and
the suicide note as well as audio clips are a far cry from the
allegation of abetment of suicide and do not reveal any overt or
covert act of any of the accused persons intentionally omitting to
do something so as to lead to suicide of the deceased. That the FIR
does not disclose any cognizable offence having been committed byPage 15 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
any of the accused persons. The arraignment of the accused Nos. 4
to 7 in the impugned FIR is even more fallacious insofar as the
Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. (in which the accused Nos. 4 to 7 are
Directors) was not even incorporated in the year 2009. It is
submitted that the FIR is not only vague but makes ex-facie false
assertions and that the same is required to be quashed in the
interest of justice.
14.2 On perusal of the subject FIR and the undisputed facts
on record, it becomes very clear that the accused Nos. 4 to 7 or
Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. have never joined Key West Developers as
Partners or become partners in the Tuscany Beach Sea Project or
in any other project of Key West Developers. This fact is not
disputed by the Respondent No.2 – Complainant in his Affidavit
dated 02.05.2024. That the accused Nos. 4 to 7, accused Nos.1 to
3 along with others incorporated an entirely new entity i.e. Ozone
Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. on 07.12.2009 for floating of an independent
project i.e. Ozone Tuscany. The two projects i.e. (i) The Tuscany
Beach Sea Project of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and (ii) Ozone Tuscany
jointly floated by accused Nos. 1 to 7 and others, are entirely
different projects. That even after Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. was
incorporated, no payment was made by the Deceased to the
Company or to accused Nos. 4 to 7. That no amount was
transferred by Key West Developers to Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. or
accused Nos. 4 to 7. That the alleged demand for execution of Sale
Deed was not made to accused Nos. 4 to 7. That the accused Nos. 4
to 7 had not issued any threats to the deceased for initiation of
legal proceedings. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract
between the deceased and accused Nos. 4 to 7. Admittedly, there is
not even an allegation of payment being made to accused Nos.4 to
7 or Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd., there arose no question of refund ofPage 16 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
amount or execution of sale deeds by Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. and
therefore, the said allegation is ex-facie not palatable and does not
amount to a punishable offence. It is a matter of public record that
Ozone Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. has not purchased any lands from Key
West Developers or accused Nos. 1 to 3. The undisputed case of the
applicants is that they had never seen, met or communicated with
the Deceased (either in person or through telecommunication).
14.3 From the allegations in the FIR and the purported
“suicide note”, the only grievance is that against the payments
made in 2007 to Key West Developers, neither land is transferred
nor money returned. This according to the Complainant and
deceased constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is
further alleged that inspite of consistent demand for performance,
the Accused have failed to transfer the land or return the money;
which has driven the deceased to suicide. Thus essentially, it is the
cheating / criminal breach of trust, which has led the deceased to
suicide and the persons who cheated / committed criminal breach
of trust have abetted suicide and thereby committed offence of
Section 306 of IPC. The allegation of abetment to suicide cannot
apply to the accused Nos. 4 to 7 as, admittedly, the Accused Nos. 4
to 7 were never parties to the 2007 transaction.
14.4 As far as the allegation of Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is submitted that it is a settled law that the
invocation of Section 420 pre-supposes an intention to cheat at the
inception of the transaction. When it is not in dispute that Ozone
Tuscany Pvt. Ltd. was not even incorporated in the year 2007 i.e.
when the alleged transaction took place; offence under Section 420
cannot be invoked at least against accused Nos. 4 to 7.
Page 17 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
14.5 With regard to offence of Section 406 is concerned, it is
submitted that it is a settled law that Section 406 cannot be
simultaneously invoked with Section 420. In any event, it is
submitted that even the provisions of Section 420 are not attracted
qua Accused Nos. 4 to 7 insofar as there is no averment with
respect to ‘entrustment of property’ to the said accused persons.
14.6 As regards allegation of Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code is concerned, it is submitted that even if the allegations made
in the FIR are taken into consideration, there are no averments to
attract the provisions of Section 306 r/w 107 of IPC; where the
primary requirement is ‘intentionally’ aiding or abetting the offence
by act or omission. The omission of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to
either refund the amount to the deceased or to execute sale deeds
in his favour has no bearing on the commission of suicide. There is
not even an averment in the FIR that the Accused persons intended
to lead the alleged omission to suicide. Thus, the allegations in the
FIR are clearly not made out. Moreover, the allegation in respect of
Section 306 is required to be read in conjunction with the
allegations for Sections 406 and 420. As submitted above, once the
foundational allegations and offences are not attracted insofar as
Accused Nos. 4 to 7 are concerned, the offence of Section 306;
consequentially fails. The alleged typed suicide note dated
28.02.2022 clearly appears to be in the format of a legal notice on
the letterhead of the deceased, which was possibly supposed to be
sent by RPAD; was then altered by adding handwritten portions to
seek to convert it into a suicide note. It is submitted that the tone
and tenor of the typed version of the suicide note show that it was
in the form of a legal notice. It is also noteworthy that the suicide
note was typed on 28.02.2022, whereas the suicide was committed
on 02.03.2022 i.e. after 2 days. Moreover, the suicide note does not
Page 18 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
make any specific allegations against the accused Nos. 4 to 7.
Further, the audio clips, which were circulated on 02.03.2022 as
per the FIR are subsequent to the suicide note and does not make
any specific allegations against the accused Nos. 4 to 7.
14.7 As far as allegation of Section 506 in the impugned FIR
is concerned, it is submitted that there are no allegations of the
Petitioner having criminally intimidated the deceased and that
filing of FIR by other accused (accused No.2) cannot be used to
implicate the applicants. Admittedly, the applicants had neither
filed nor threatened to file criminal complaints against the
deceased or his family members and therefore also, such allegation
is totally bald and baseless. Even otherwise, it is a settled position
in law that institution of legal proceedings or threatening to do so
would not amount to criminal intimidation. It is submitted that any
vague and unsubstantiated statements made by witnesses / family
members of the deceased; which are even beyond the suicide note,
audio clip and FIR are wholly inconsequential and cannot be taken
into consideration. The deceased and / or complainant, who had the
best knowledge of the transaction and the events which transpired
thereafter, have not referred to anything other than the payments
made in the year 2007. Any contrary suggestion by any other
witness would thus also be inconsequential. It is submitted that
except the suicide note and the FIR, there is no material to even
prima facie make out the allegations made in the FIR against any of
the Accused persons; more particularly accused Nos. 4 to 7. In light
of the above, it is submitted that the subject FIR is required to be
quashed, more particularly qua accused Nos. 4 to 7.
14.8 By making the above submissions, learned Senior
Advocates submitted that no case is made out for an offence
Page 19 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 306, 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code or any other Sections mentioned in the impugned FIR
and, therefore, the impugned FIR as well as all consequential
proceedings arising out of the said FIR qua applicants – accused
Nos.4 to 7 may be quashed and set aside.
15. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 – State vehemently
opposed these petitions and submitted that irrespective of whether
transaction was done with accused Nos.1 to 3 or all accused, as
their names are mentioned in the suicide note, all of them are
responsible for compelling the deceased person to commit suicide.
He further submitted that upon reading the FIR, prima facie case is
made out against the present applicants and as the coordinate
Benches have allowed the investigation to continue, the
investigation was continued during all this time, various statements
were recorded and upon perusal of the relevant statements, it
reveals that the present applicants were instrumental in compelling
the deceased person to commit suicide. Therefore, all these
petition may kindly be dismissed qua every single applicant and
they are required to be prosecuted and asked to face the trial.
15.1 Learned APP Mr. Raval has placed on record
photocopies of the relevant statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation. He also placed on record a copy
of suicide note which is not part of any of the petitions. He relied
upon the two statements of Mr. Priyank Mahendrabhai Faldu, first
informant, first one dated 2.3.2022 which is in the form of FIR
whereas the second one dated 26.3.2022 wherein the first
informant has elaborately stated about the 11 audio clips which
Page 20 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
were purportedly recorded by the deceased before committing the
suicide. However, it nowhere mentions names of any of the
applicants. Learned APP Mr. Raval thereafter relied upon the
statement dated 30.5.2022 of one Mr. Renish Bhagvanjibhai
Makadiya wherein he has stated that he does not know anything
about whether the applicant Nos.1 to 3 have ever harassed the
deceased person mentally or physically. He further stated that
deceased person had booked various parcels of land at a price of
Rs.350/- per Sq. Yds., and he was to sell the said land to the
investors at a price of Rs.450/- per Sq. Yds. and part payment of the
land in question was made. Except this, the statement of Mr.
Renish does not throw any light about the offence in question.
Thereafter, Learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon statement dated
14.3.2022 of Nilesh Rashmikant Joshi who was working as
Accountant in Ozone India Limited which is a Partnership Firm of
accused Nos.4 to 7 wherein he has stated that except some
bookings done by Ozone Tuscany Private Limited around 50 in
numbers, he does not have any knowledge about any other thing.
Thereafter, Learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon the statement of
Vijay Raghubhai Bhalgamadiya dated 6.3.2022 wherein he has
stated that he came to know through Whatsapp that deceased had
committed suicide on account of some harassment by the
applicants. Similarly, Learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon the
statement of Bashir Dadubhai Khokhar dated 5.3.2022 wherein he
has stated that though he knew that there was some transaction in
respect of land in Tuscany Beach City Project and accused Amit
Chauhan and M. M. Patel used to discuss about the same and that
the amount was not repaid, he does not know anything beyond
that. Learned APP Mr. Raval also relied upon the statement of
Kishan Navin Mankadiya dated 5.3.2022 which also does not throw
any light about the offence in question except the fact that father of
Page 21 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
the said Kishan i.e. Navinbhai had booked some land through
deceased person but the payment of the said land was made by
deceased only and as his father died on 24.3.2016, he does not
know anything about the booking.
15.2 Then, Learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon the statement
of important witness, namely, Joliben M. Faldu, wife of deceased
dated 4.3.2022 who has stated that after booking the land, in the
year 2007, before two to three days of the incident, deceased told
her wife that he is required to take around Rs.30 to 35 Crores from
the applicant Nos.1 to 3 and, therefore, he is required to go to
Ahmedabad and will stay at their Flat situated at Ahmedabad.
However, the statement states that accused Nos.1 to 3 had never
given threat to her husband nor they have tried to recover the
amount by going to their residence and she does not know anything
about the Tuscany Beach City Project and whether any plot was
booked in her name or not. After the incident, she came to know
from her son Priyank that on account of the fact that after the
amount was invested by the deceased, as the applicants are neither
executing the Sale Deed in favour of the concerned Investors, nor
were returning the money and thereby causing mental and physical
harassment to the deceased, the deceased has committed suicide
and she came to know about such harassment only through suicide
note and recording. Learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon the
statement of Bindiben Priyank Faldu dated 4.3.2022 who also
stated that she came to know about such incident and cause of
suicide only from her husband i.e. first informant and both the
Uncle-in-law Rameshbhai and Shaileshbhai. Thereafter, Learned
APP Mr. Raval relied upon the statement of uncle of the deceased
i.e. Vinaykant T. Faldu dated 4.3.2022 who has stated that
deceased person has invested amount of Rs.3 Crores by taking the
Page 22 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
land in his name and other relatives of around 1 Lac Sq. Yds out of
which four plots were booked by him through the deceased and
despite making payment of the said plot, as the Sale Deed was not
being executed upon asking the deceased, he used to say that on
account of insufficiency of documents, the Sale Deed is not
executed. Thereafter, after two to three years, when the same
question was paused to the deceased, he said that the opposite
party (applicants herein) are in no mood to execute the Sale Deed.
In November 2021, he found the deceased in stress and in his
statement, he has stated that accused Amit Chauhan happens to be
the friend of deceased and other two accused persons amongst
accused Nos.1 to 3 happen to be his partners and that is the only
fact he knows and he does not know anything beyond that and rest
of the facts about the suicide came to his knowledge only from the
son of deceased Priyank and other two nephews, namely, Ramesh
and Shailesh. Learned APP Mr. Raval also relied upon the
statements of Ramesh Dipakbhai Solanki Solanki dated 4.3.2022,
Niraj Harshad Dabhi dated 3.3.2022, Navghanbhai Hirabhai
Gamara dated 3.3.2022 who have stated that they came to know
about the fact and reason behind suicide only through relatives and
they had no personal knowledge about the same. Similarly, one
Sandip Ramnikbhai Vanaliya and Ramukumar Jentibhai Mataliya in
their statements recorded on 3.3.2022 have narrated the fact about
what they saw at the time when they went to the scene of offence
and they came to know about the reason behind suicide from the
family members of the deceased.
15.3 Learned APP Mr. Raval also took the Court to the
documents which were accompanied along with the Suicide note
i.e. accounts of the land allegedly booked through the deceased
and by relying upon those documents, he submitted that even a
Page 23 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
report from the Chartered Accountant in respect of that account
was also asked for, for which DDM & Associates, Chartered
Accountants had submitted its report. However, in the conclusion
of the Report, it was observed that out of Rs.2,89,51,299/-
investment by cheque and cash by investors, an amount of
Rs.2,30,46,299/- is still pending to be paid by the accused to the
Investors.
15.4 By relying upon the aforesaid documents, Learned APP
Mr. Raval submitted that the statement of the witnesses prima
facie indicates that it was on account of the act or omission on the
part of the applicants that the deceased person was in tremendous
stress as they were neither executing the Sale Deed nor they were
returning the amount paid by the deceased and/or to the investors
and the deceased person had no other option, but to commit
suicide. Therefore, all these petitions may be dismissed as on
account of act or omission, ingredients of Section 107 IPC are
satisfied and, therefore, the applicants are directly responsible for
offence under Section 306 of IPC as they have abated in the crime.
15.5 In support of his submissions, learned APP relied upon
the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Devrajbhai Khodabhai Sakhiya v. State of Gujarat and others,
reported in 2023 (0) GUJHC 51207, more particularly
paragraphs 9.5 to 9.9 and submitted that the applicants are
specifically named in the suicide note and when there is prima facie
evidence to the effect that there was a dispute related to land
booked through the deceased person for which the applicants were
neither executing the Sale Deed nor were returning the money, the
Court at the threshold when the investigation is over, may not
exercise its discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Page 24 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Procedure, 1973 and quash the FIR and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom. He further submitted that in some
what similar circumstances, in the case cited above, the coordinate
Bench of this Court declined to quash the FIR and all consequential
proceedings and the petitions were dismissed and when the said
order was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the SLP was
also dismissed.
15.6 Learned APP Mr. Raval also relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State
of Uttaranchal and another, (2012) 9 SCC 734, more
particularly paragraphs 18 and 19, and submitted that there is no
straight jacket rule to come to a conclusion about how the
instigation has taken place. It has to be gathered from the
circumstances of a particular case and it is for the Court to gather
the said information from the facts of the case to come to a
conclusion and it is for the Court to consider the facts of each case
while considering the aspect of instigation.
15.7 Lastly, learned APP Mr. Raval relied upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben v. State of
Gujarat and others, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 117, more
particularly paragraphs 15, 37 to 40, and submitted that it is
necessary for the Court to go into the question whether there was
any direct or indirect act or incitement to the offence of abatement
or suicide and, therefore, before exercising the powers under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR / criminal complaint or
criminal proceedings, the High Court has to be circumspect and
have due regard to the nature and gravity of offence, heneous or
serious crimes which are not private in nature have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed on the basis of
Page 25 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or
victim and that once the FIR is registered and Criminal Case is
started by the State, it becomes a matter between the State and
the accused and the State has a duty to ensure that the law and
order is maintained in the society.
16. By relying upon the above decisions, learned APP Mr.
Raval submitted that despite the fact that the first informant –
respondent No.2 herein has stated on oath that he does not have
any grievance against the applicants and he does not have any
objection if the FIR against the applicants are dropped and
considering the nature of offence and the role attributed to the
present applicants, the impugned FIR and all other consequential
proceedings may not be quashed.
17. Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent No.2 – first informant has once again reiterated the
contents of affidavit of first informant and reiterated that
appropriate order be passed by taking into consideration the
affidavit dated 2.5.2024 filed by the first informant.
18. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. I have also considered
the statements recorded during the course of investigation. I am
also conscious of the fact that though while protecting the
applicants vide order dated 17.3.2022, the coordinate Bench has
ordered not to take any coercive steps against the applicants and
by taking into consideration the said order, another coordinate
Bench vide order dated 7.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.6506 of 2022 passed order on similar line and
protected accused of the said petition, namely, Prakash Chandulal
Page 26 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Patel. The investigation was never stayed. Therefore, the
Investigating Officer had ample time and opportunity to carry out
in depth investigation. Accordingly, considering the last order
dated 7.4.2022 by which relief was granted in favour of the
applicants and the matters were heard finally on 12.8.2025 and
13.8.2025 i.e. after more than three years from the first order, the
Investigating Officer had ample time to investigate the offence in
question. Accordingly, offence was investigated and various
statements were recorded and relied upon by learned APP along
with the suicide note and accounts of the land which was alleged to
have been booked by the deceased for himself and his relatives and
friends for which neither Sale Deed was executed nor the amount
was returned to him.
19. Therefore, the present petitions are required to be
considered in light of submissions made by learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties and by applying the ratio of
relevant decisions relied upon by both the sides. If I look at the
oral as well as written submissions made by learned Senior
Advocates appearing for the applicants, series of decisions were
cited on every single point argued by them. However, it would not
be possible for the Court to discuss every single decision relied
upon by learned Senior Advocates and, therefore, the Court deems
it appropriate to consider few latest / most relevant decisions on
the subject.
20. Further, the suicide note on the basis of which the
present applicants are arraigned as accused also bears the date of
28.2.2022 at the top and bottom and the suicide note which, at the
time when the petitions were preferred were not on record.
However, subsequently, the suicide note was placed on record by
Page 27 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
learned APP and upon perusal of suicide note, the same is found to
be a typed note as far as first two pages are concerned with some
hand writings on the top and the third page of the suicide note was
a hand written page. At the end of the suicide note also, it bears
the date 28.2.2022. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants
were directed to provide a translated copy of the suicide note
which reads thus :-
“Mahendra K. Fadadu
At: 801, Anjani Tower, 150 Feet Ring Road, Near Eagle
Travels, Opposite Aalishan Apartment, RajkotREGD. A.D.
Date: 28/02/2022
The following text is handwritten
Final statement before committing suicide.
The following text is typed .
(1) Shri M.M. Patel (Sureja)
(2) Shri Atulbhai Mehta (Ahmedabad
(3) Shri Amitbhai J. Chauhan
(4) Shri Jayeshkumar Kantilal Patel (Director of Ozone
Tuscany)
(5) Shri Dipak Manilal Patel (Director of Ozone Tuscany)
(6) Shri Pranaykumar Kantilal Patel (Director of Ozone
Tuscany)
Brother ( Bhaishri),
1. In your project named ‘Tuscany’ situated in Bavla
Taluka of Ahmedabad District, I, Shri Mahendra
Keshavlal Fadadu, had, in the year 2007, booked
approximately 48,000-00 Sq. yards of land in my own
name as well as in the names of my relatives. In the
same manner, my younger brother, Ramesh Keshavlal
Fadadu, booked approximately 11,500-00 Sq. yards of
land; my other younger brother, Shri Shailesh Keshavlal
Fadadu, booked approximately 5,000-00 Sq. yards of
land; my paternal uncle, Shri Vinaykant T. Fadadu,
booked approximately 2,000-00 Sq. yards of land in the
names of his family members; and other members of our
group booked other parcels of land admeasuringPage 28 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
approximately 14,000-00 Sq. yards. Apart from the
above, as per the Schedule hereto, approximately
1,00,000 Sq. yards of land/plots have been booked
through me, the Schedule whereof is also in your
possession as well as in mine. This booking was made in
the year 2007, and the payment therefor was also made
in the year 2007. A sum exceeding approximately
Rupees Three Crores was deposited in your initial
company, Key West Developers. This amount stands
deposited in the bank account of your company, is
recorded in the books of your company, and is also
refl ected in your income-tax returns.
2. In this regard, copies of the papers pertaining to the
repeated discussions held with you, correspondence,
and notings (notes) are annexed hereto. Despite this,
your company neither provides any reply in detail, nor
executes the Sale Deed, nor refunds the amount at the
prevailing market value of the plots. The account in
respect thereof has already been sent to you earlier as
well.
3. If only the bookings of my family in your company are
considered, the same comprise approximately 48,000-
00 Sq. yards of land. If the current market value
thereof is calculated at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per Sq.
yard, it comes to Rs.33,60,00,000/-; if calculated at
Rs.6,500/-, it comes to Rs.31,20,00,000/-, and if
calculated at Rs.6,000/-, it comes to Rs.28,80,00,000/-.
You have been causing us severe harassment and
hardship as part of your attempts to avoid paying us
this amount.
4. We are prepared to accept the aforesaid amount, the
fair amount, or such amount as may be determined by a
mediator. In the alternative, we have requested, and do
hereby request, you to execute the Sale Deed in respect
of approximately 48,000-00 Sq. yards of land, together
with the development as represented by you at the time
of booking. However, you do not heed any of our
requests, do not meet us, and do not permit us to enter
your off ice, the site, or any other place. Your security
personnel evict us. When we visit the off ice of Shri
M.M. Patel, he lodges a police complaint, and Shri
Atulbhai Mehta has also lodged a police complaint
against my younger brother, Shri Shailesh Fadadu.
Thus, in order to avoid executing the Sale Deeds in our
favour and to evade payment of the substantial amount
due, you have been harassing, troubling, and issuing
threats to us.
Page 29 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
5. Due to such illegal acts on your part, I have been
subjected to severe economic, physical, and mental
harassment. My fi nancial position and monetary
condition have been ruined because of you. The persons
named in the Schedule enclosed herewith, in whose
favour bookings were made through me, have been paid
the amounts on behalf of your company by me.
Nevertheless, you, taking advantage of the situation,
neither repay the said amounts nor provide any
response. Due to such conduct on your part, three to
four of the persons who had made bookings have passed
away. I had even requested you to pay the amounts
required for their medical treatment; however, you
neither paid those amounts nor made any payment
towards the expenses of their fi nal religious rites. Since
such persons had made their bookings through me, they
come to me, to my residence, to my off ice, and to my
place of business, thereby causing me severe
harassment. Due to your illegal acts, these persons
subject me to intimidation, threats, and harassment. I
face great diff iculty in going to my place of business,
my off ice, or attending social functions. Because of you,
it has become diff icult for me to face society, and I am
put to humiliation. Due to such acts on your part, I
remain in a state of great restlessness, my health
deteriorates, negative thoughts arise in my mind, and
because of you, it has become extremely diff icult for me
to live and exist in society. I fail to understand why
businessmen like you resort to such actions for the sake
of money or land. Whenever I see you, any person who
has made a booking with you, or any related person, or
whenever such thoughts arise in my mind, it causes a
severe and adverse eff ect on my health. Due to you, my
family and I are spendin g our time in extreme distress
and tension. You all are responsible, at fault, and guilty
for causing the deterioration of my fi nancial, physical,
and mental condition.
The following text is handwritten
Because of you, my family has faced extreme diff iculties.
Because of you, I, i.e., Mahendra Fadadu, had to consume
poison, had to commit suicide, and had to give up my precious
life. Because of you, my family and I have suff ered losses
which cannot be compensated in terms of money. People like
you will not be forgiven even by God. Therefore, I respectfully
request the Hon’ble Court and the judicial authorities to
impose upon these persons the strictest possible punishment
prescribed by law.
I also request my family not to, in any manner, spare
Page 30 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
these persons.
The police department may be strict at fi rst but may
become lenient later; even then, you must not let them go.
Family and friends, ensure that justice is done to me and
my family. I have complete faith in you.
Sd/-
(Mahendra K. Fadadu)
28/2/22″
21. To decide the controversy or to decide whether in view
of above suicide note and the facts stated in the FIR and the facts
that has emerged during the course of investigation, whether
offence can be said to have been committed by the applicants or
not, firstly I am required to look into the judicial pronouncements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on the subject
on hand.
22. In the case of Shenbagavalli and others v. Inspector
of Police, Kancheepuram District and another (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 to 18 has held as under :-
“15. Section 306 requires a person having
committed suicide as a first requirement but for
abetment of such commission, which is essential,
the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC.
The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC
is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or
with other person in any conspiracy for doing such
thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that
conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act
or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large
number of judgments of this Court it stands
established that the essential ingredients of thePage 31 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment;
(ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or
abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely
because the act of an accused is highly insulting to
the deceased by using abusive language would not
by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State represented by
its inspector of Police).
16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and
Others v. State of Haryana, it has been observed in
para 16 as follows :-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the
act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the part of the
accused which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a
person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the
facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had beenPage 32 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four
corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-
respect of the victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would
be examined with reference to the actual acts and
deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence
of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept
on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human
behaviour, each case is required to be examined on
its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions
and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”
17. These being the essential ingredients for the
offence of abetment to suicide, and the said
ingredients having not been fulfilled, the further
continuation of proceedings would not be
sustainable. The other evidence such as statements,
sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apart
from the suicide note, does not in any manner
advance the case of the prosecution, particularly
when the foundation of the case is the suicide note
itself. With the very element of abetment
conspicuously absent from the allegations made in
the FIR which is primarily based upon the suicide
note, the essential requirements for constituting an
Page 33 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
offence under Section 306 IPC remain unfulfilled. As
such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings
initiated against the Appellants would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot
permit such proceedings to degenerate into
instruments of harassment or unjust prosecution.
18. The Court would not hesitate to exercise its
extraordinary powers which are inherent to quash
such proceedings when it comes to fore, and the
court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of process of Court or
that the ends of the justice require that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. Reference in this
regard may be made to the Judgment of this Court
in Geo Varghese V. State of Rajasthan and Another.”
23. In the case of R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka
and others (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 13
to 15 has held as under :-
“13. Assuming that the allegations are true, even
otherwise, the case under Section 306 of IPC would
not be made out. Recently, this Court in a case of
Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Another in which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a
Member has considered all the earlier judgments
with regard to Section 306 of IPC. After referring to
the earlier judgments, this Court has observed
thus :-
“31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar
(supra), this Court, under similar circumstances,
had quashed the chargesheet under Section 306 of
the IPC against the accused- appellant. A factor thatPage 34 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
had weighed with the Court in the said case was
that there was a time gap of 48 hours being the
alleged instigation and the commission of suicide.
This Court held that the deceased was a victim of
his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that
had ensued between him and the appellant, 48
hours prior to the commission of his suicide.
32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in
the FIR at face value, the incident at the
mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February
2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on
20th March 2015. There is a clear gap of over a
month between the incident at the mahalokadalat
and the commission of suicide. We therefore find
that the courts below have erroneously accepted
the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the
deceased was a direct result of the words uttered
by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
…………….
34. …….The cardinal principle of the subject-matter
at hand is that there must be a close proximity
between the positive act of instigation by the
accused person and the commission of suicide by
the victim. The close proximity should be such as to
create a clear nexus between the act of instigation
and the act of suicide. As was held in the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the
deceased had taken the words of the appellants
seriously, a time gap between the two incidents
would have given enough time to the deceased to
think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap
of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve
the nexus or the proximate link between the two
acts.”
14. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court
itself would reveal that the Government Pleader
appearing in the case has submitted before the
High Court that the entire investigation was
complete and what was remaining was the filing of
a final report before the concerned court. The
learned Single Judge has observed that he has
Page 35 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
perused the entire investigation papers and perusal
of the same revealed that there is not a titter of a
document that would pin respondent Nos.2 to 4
down for any act of abetment for suicide of the
husband of the appellant-complainant.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered view
that even taking the allegations at its face value, it
cannot be said that the allegations would amount to
instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any
case, there is no reasonable nexus between the
period to which the allegations pertain and the date
of death. In that view of the matter, we do not find
that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
erred in quashing the proceedings under Section
306 of IPC.”
24. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 12 to
25 has held as under :-
“12. As is clear from the plain language of the
Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the
accused should have abetted the commission of a
suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who
Firstly – instigates any person to do that thing or
Secondly – engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing or Thirdly – intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and
Page 36 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant
remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court
held that :-
“3. …Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between
quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to
follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite ‘mens rea’ on the assumption that these
words would be carried out in all events. …”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat
and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that
in order to bring out an offence under Section 306
IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention
to bring about the suicide of the person concerned
as a result of that abetment is required. It was
further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as
under :-
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order
to find out whether the cruelty and harassment
meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is
also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accusedPage 37 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626
followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under :-
“41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar
has examined different shades of the meaning of
“instigation”. Para 20 reads as under :- (SCC p. 629)“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not
a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.”
Page 38 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence and material available on
record wherefrom an inference of the appellant –
accused having abetted commission of suicide by
Seema (the appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily
be drawn.”
18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra)
held :-
“45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in
order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should
have created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit
of anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
20. Applying the above principle to the facts of
the present case, we are convinced that there are no
grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the
prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest.
A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
Page 39 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan
guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh
Malakar.
21. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at
the behest of his employer can be said to have
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally
so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it
could not be said that the appellant intended to
instigate the commission of suicide.
22. It could certainly not be said that the
appellant by his acts created circumstances which
left the deceased with no other option except to
commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the
appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit
heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased
with no other option but to commit suicide. This is
the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach,
keeping the context and the situation in mind.
Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a
delay of two months and twenty days.
23. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold,
mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section
108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem
to have followed more in the breach. Section 306
IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted
to by the police. While the persons involved in
genuine cases where the threshold is met should not
Page 40 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
be spared, the provision should not be deployed
against individuals, only to assuage the immediate
feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.
24. The conduct of the proposed accused and the
deceased, their interactions and conversations
preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased
should be approached from a practical point of view
and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not,
without anything more, be glorified as an instigation
to commit suicide. It is time the investigating
agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this
Court under Section 306 so that persons are not
subjected to the abuse of process of a totally
untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should
exercise great caution and circumspection and
should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by
mechanically framing charges, even if the
investigating agencies in a given case have shown
utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
25. For the above reasons, we hold that the case
against the appellant is groundless for framing of a
charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge the
appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19
of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar
and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The
appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal
Revision No.1142 of 2023 is set aside.”
25. In the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of
Page 41 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Uttar Pradesh and another (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in paragraphs 19 to 24 has held as under :-
“19. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. in
almost similar circumstances, this Court quashed
the proceedings sought to be taken against the
petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The relevant
observations from the said judgment are reproduced
as under :- (SCC pp. 660-61, paras 4-7)“4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s
M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of his
employment, he had been posted at various
worksites of the Company and on 11-9-1999 he was
transferred to the worksite of the Company’s stores
located at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata. It seems
that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab Kumar
Nag did not join duty and after a period of about two
years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his
own hand wherein he expressed his grievance of
stagnancy of salary and also alleged that he was a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. The Company
accepted his resignation with immediate effect. On
16-2-2001, a dead body was found at the railway
tracks near Ballygunge Railway Station and it was
revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar Nag.
His brother went to the office where Pranab Kumar
Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body
of Pranab Kumar Nag was released to his brother
after the post-mortem examination on 19-2-2001.
After a period of two months, a complaint was
lodged before the police post on the basis of a
suicide note allegedly recovered from the dead body
of Pranab Kumar Nag. Based on the complaint, a
case was registered against the appellant and some
others. A translated copy of the suicide note is
produced before us by the appellant. We have
carefully read the alleged suicide note. The
substance of this suicide note is that deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag alleged that appellant Netai
Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in
several wrongdoings (he has shown as a type of
torture) and at the end of the letter, a reference is
also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and Netai Dutta
alleging that he reported certain incidents to them.
A reading of the letter would show that deceasedPage 42 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Pranab Kumar Nag was not very much satisfied with
the working conditions in the office. In the letter he
has stated that he had to be at the workplace
sometimes throughout the day and night and he had
to remain in the company of some drivers who had
been sometimes in drunken condition at about one
o’clock or two o’clock in the night. It is also alleged
that the drivers who had been present at the
workplace had been having non-vegetarian food. He
also complained that he had to work even on
Sundays. He further stated that one day he could
leave the workplace at 8 o’clock in the evening and
all the restaurants were closed and that he reported
the matter to the present appellant.
5. There is absolutely no averment in the
alleged suicide note that the present appellant had
caused any harm to him or was in any way
responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was
very much dissatisfied with the working conditions
at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that
the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never
joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and
had absented himself for a period of two years and
that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot
be said that the present appellant had in any way
instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was
responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An
offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if
there is an abetment for the commission of the
crime. The parameters of “abetment” have been
stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a
thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or
engages with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, or the person should have
intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The
Explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful
misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also
come within the contours of “abetment”.
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name
of the appellant at two places, there is no reference
of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein
is alleged to have committed any wilful act or
omission or intentionally aided or instigated the
Page 43 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act
of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has
played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which
ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission
of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no
allegation made by the complainant that the
appellant herein in any way was harassing his
brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered
against the appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note
do not in any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against the
appellant would only result in sheer harassment to
the appellant without any fruitful result. In our
opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in
holding that the first information report against the
appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable
offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed
against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit
case where the extraordinary power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be
invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow
the appeal.”
20. In the case of M. Mohan v. State represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3, this Court
held as below :-
“36. We would like to deal with the concept of
“abetment”. Section 306 of the Code deals with
“abetment of suicide” which reads as under :-
“306. Abetment of suicide. — If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
37. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere
defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and
import is well known and requires no explanation.
“Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus
implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself,Page 44 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an
offence considering that the successful offender is
beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Section 309 IPC.
39. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under
Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce Section 107, which reads as under :-
“107.Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the doing
of a thing, who —
First — Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly — Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly — Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.”
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with
Section 107 reads as under :-
Explanation 2 — Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.
40. The learned counsel also placed reliance on
yet another judgment of this Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, in which a three-
Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal
with the case of a similar nature. In a dispute
between the husband and wife, the appellant
husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you
wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife
of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.
41. This Court in para 20 of Ramesh Kumar
examined different shades of the meaning of
“instigation”. Para 20 reads as under :- (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
Page 45 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not
a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.”
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence and material available on
record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-
accused having abetted commission of suicide by
Seema (the appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily
be drawn.
42. In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, this Court
has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end her life by committing
suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and difference in domestic life,
quite common to the society, to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and difference
were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to
commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and
“goading”. The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing
of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability
pattern is different from the others. Each person has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts
and circumstances.
Page 46 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
44. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the
part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in
order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide.
46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd.
this Court has held that when prima facie no case is
made out against the accused, then the High Court
ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC and quashed the complaint.
47. In a recent judgment of this Court in Madan
Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, this Court quashed
the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground
that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless
and observed that the High Court was in error in not
quashing the proceedings.
48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of
instigation, there are even no allegations against the
appellants. There is also no proximate link between
the incident of 14-1-2005 when the deceased was
denied permission to use the Qualis car with the
factum of suicide which had taken place on 18-1-
2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because
of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a
joint family, instances of this kind are not very
uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual
differs from person to person. Each individual has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Different people behave differently in the same
situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of
suicide had taken place in the family. But the
question that remains to be answered is whether the
appellants can be connected with that unfortunate
incident in any manner?
49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on
Page 47 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
record and the law, which has been declared by this
Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that
the appellants are not even remotely connected with
the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may be
relevant to mention that criminal proceedings
against the husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1)
and Easwari (A-3) are pending adjudication.
******
62. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, this Court
in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC, gave the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it
clear that it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised : (SCC pp.
378-79, para 102)
“102……. (1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
Page 48 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
*****
65. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque observed thus : (SCC
p. 128, para 8)
“8. … It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers, court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine
the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to
be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.”
*****
68. In the light of the settled legal position, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was not justified
Page 49 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charges under
Section 306 IPC against them. The High Court ought
to have quashed the proceedings so that the
appellants who were not remotely connected with
the offence under Section 306 IPC should not have
been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal
trial. As a result, the charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellants are quashed.”
21. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case
is entirely based on the suicide note left behind by
the deceased before committing suicide. On a
minute perusal of the suicide note, we do not find
that the contents thereof indicate any act or
omission on the part of the accused appellant which
could make him responsible for abetment as defined
under Section 107 IPC.
22. We have minutely perused the suicide note
(reproduced supra) which clearly shows that the
deceased was frustrated on account of work
pressure and was apprehensive of various random
factors unconnected to his official duties. He was
also feeling the pressure of working in two different
districts. However, such apprehensions expressed in
the suicide note, by no stretch of imagination, can
be considered sufficient to attribute to the appellant,
an act or omission constituting the elements of
abetment to commit suicide. The facts of the case at
hand are almost identical to the case of Netai Dutta
(supra). Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that
the necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment
to commit suicide are not made out from the
chargesheet and hence allowing prosecution of the
appellant is grossly illegal for the offences
Page 50 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamounts to gross abuse of
process to law.
23. It may be noted that in the first instance, the
investigating agency itself proposed a closure report
in the matter after conducting thorough
investigation. In this background, we are of the
opinion that there do not exist any justifiable ground
so as to permit the prosecution of the appellant for
the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act.
24. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High
Court and all proceedings sought to be taken
against the appellant in the criminal case pending
for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are hereby
quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed
accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.”
26. In the case of Mohit Singhal and another v. State of
Uttarakhand and others (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraphs 7 to 11 has held as under :-
“7. The suicide note records that the third
respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-.
According to the deceased, he had paid more than
half of the amount to Sandeep. The suicide note
records that as he could not pay the rest of the
money, the first appellant came to his house andPage 51 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
started abusing him. He stated that the first
appellant had assaulted him, and therefore, he
complained to the police. He further noted that the
business of giving money on interest was
prospering. He stated that the third respondent is
not a prudent woman, and due to her habit of
intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped
in this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that
the first appellant has made his life a hell.
8. According to the complaint of the third
respondent, the incident in her shop of the first
appellant threatening and assaulting her and her
husband was on 15th June 2017. After that, notice
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, was issued by Sandeep to the deceased
on 27th June 2017. The suicide note was written
three days after that, on 30th June 2017. The
deceased committed suicide three days thereafter.
Neither in the complaint of the third respondent nor
in the suicide note, it is alleged that after 15th June
2017, the appellants or Sandeep either met or spoke
to the third respondent and her deceased husband.
9. Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment to
commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 of the
IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing, reads
thus :-
“Section 107 — Abetment of a thing – A person abets
the doing of a thing, who–
First — Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Page 52 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.” (emphasis supplied)
10. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly
in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the
question is whether the appellants instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first
clause, there must be instigation in some form on
the part of the accused to cause the deceased to
commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens
rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The
act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is
intended to push the deceased to such a position
under which he or she has no choice but to commit
suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity
to the act of committing suicide.
11. In the present case, taking the complaint of
the third respondent and the contents of the suicide
note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the
appellants instigated the deceased to commit
suicide by demanding the payment of the amount
borrowed by the third respondent from her husband
by using abusive language and by assaulting him by
a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedlyPage 53 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
happened more than two weeks before the date of
suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done
by the appellants in the close proximity to the date
of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the
alleged acts of the appellants can amount to
instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has
blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits.”
27. Further, in the case of Ayyub & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 20 has observed as under :-
“20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has
reiterated that in order to make out an offence under
Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated
by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It
has been further held that the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased
to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section
306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujarat]. Further, the alleged harassment meted
out should have left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life and that in
cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit
suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of
W.B. and M. Mohan v. State and Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Chhatisgarh).”
28. Lastly, even at the time of admission hearing, the
Page 54 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 17.3.2022
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5330 of 2022, 5318 of
2022 and 5460 of 2022, by assigning reasons, protected the
applicants by observing thus :-
“11. I have heard the submissions made by the
learned Counsels for the parties and also perused
the material placed on record as well as the
documents supplied by the concerned advocates. I
have also perused the decisions relied on by the
learned Counsels for the respective party.
11.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Rao, appearing for
Respondent No.2-original complainant insisted for
passing a reasoned order.
11.2 From the allegations made in the impugned
FIR against the present applicants, prima facie, this
Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are
not made out. If, the averments made in the
impugned FIR are carefully seen, it is the case of
Respondent No.2-original complainant that his
father, i.e. the deceased, had invested certain
amount for the purpose of purchasing the land,
admeasuring about one lakh square yards in ‘The
Tuscany Beach Sea’ in the year 2007. It may be
noted that the amount towards the same was given
by the deceased to the partners of West Key
Developers. It appears that, thereafter, in the year
Page 55 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
2009, a company, namely Ozone Tuscany Private
Limited, was incorporated and as per the case of
Respondent No.2, said company has taken-over the
aforesaid project.
11.3 It is the main grievance of Respondent No.2
that, though, the deceased had requested the
accused persons from time to time to either execute
the sale deed in his favour as well as in favour of his
relatives or to return the money, the accused
persons did not do so and on account of that the
deceased was forced to commit suicide.
11.4 Thus, from a perusal of the averments and
the allegations made in the impugned FIR, itself,
this Court is of the opinion that, prima facie, the
ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC are not made out.
11.5 It is also pertinent to note, at this stage, that
brother of the deceased, namely Shailesh Faldu, has
also invested certain amount in the aforesaid project
and from the record, it appears that against said
Shaileshbhai, one of the accused persons lodged an
FIR in January, 2021, for giving threats on
telephone to the concerned accused person.
11.6 Here, it may be noted that the deceased,
himself, was an advocate and the president in many
institutions / trusts and thus, he was not a layman. It
Page 56 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
was always open to him to institute civil suit or to
file a complaint before the concerned authorities
against the accused persons, if, they had refused to
execute sale-deed in favour of the deceased and his
relatives. It is also not in dispute that the deceased
had issued no legal notice to the applicants-accused
nor had he initiated any civil or criminal
proceedings.
11.7 At this stage, it is pertinent to note that
learned Advocate, Mr. Rao, contended that one legal
notice was issued in December, 2018 through an
advocate to the partners of Key West Developers.
However, on a perusal of the same, it reveals that
the said notice was given by one Ms. Ushaben
Navinbhai Mankodia and Mr. Kisahnbhai Navinbhai
Mankodia and it was not given by the deceased.
Thus, it becomes clear that the deceased had issued
no legal notice to the applicants for execution of thesale-deeds.
11.8 At this stage, it would also be pertinent to
note that the learned APP, Mr. Dabhi, referred to
the suicide notes written by the deceased. If, the
same are seen, they are the typed ones.
11.9 In the aforesaid background, it would be
relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in
SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR‘ (Supra),
more particularly, Paragraphs-11, 14 and 15
Page 57 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
thereof, where, the Apex Court has observed and
held as under ;-
“11. This Court, considering the definition of
‘abetment’ under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the
charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence
under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the
allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court
further held that neither of the ingredients of
abetment are attracted on the statement of the
deceased.
XXX XXX XXX
14. The next and most important material is the
suicide note left by the deceased. The translated
copy is annexed to this appeal as annexure P-1. It is
extracted :
“SUICIDE NOTE Danik Bhaskar 581 South Civil
Lines Jabalpur. Agent Name Sengar New Agency
Place Goshalpur No. of copies 409 Date Name of the
person who prepared label Gosalpur Sengar has
threatened to report under Dowery demand and
threatened to involve family members due to this I
am writing in my full senses that Sanjay Sangar is
responsible for my death. Sanjay Sangar also
Mukraj commander Loota Tha Sanjay ki. Sengar
New Agency Gosalpur I was threatened therefore I
am dying Sangar Gosalpur My name Chander
Bhushan Singh Goutam Chander Bhushan Singh
Goutam Babloo Goutam In my senses Sengar
responsible for my death. My moti Darling my moti.
You look after my Chukho. My darling Moti Neelam
Sengar @ Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam
Gandhigram Budghagar. Sengar is responsible for
my death Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death
Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death Chander
Bhushan Singh Goutam Gandhigram Budhagar”.
15. A plain reading of the suicide note would
clearly show that the deceased was in great stress
and depressed. One plausible reason could be that
the deceased was without any work or avocation
and at the same time indulged in drinking as
revealed from the statement of the wife Smt.
Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading
of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a
note is not a handy work of a man with sound mind
Page 58 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the
deceased, made a statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. before the Investigation Officer. She stated
that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine
and was not doing any work. She also stated that on
26th July, 1998 her husband came to them in an
inebriated condition and was abusing her and other
members of the family. The prosecution story, if
believed, shows that the quarrel between the
deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th
July, 1998 and if the deceased came back to the
house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be said
that the suicide by the deceased was the direct
result of the quarrel that had taken pace on 25 th
July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances
independently, we are clearly of the view that the
ingredients of ‘abetment’ are totally absent in the
instant case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased
always remained in a drunkened condition. It is a
common knowledge that excessive drinking leads
one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore,
that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct
unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on
25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated to have
used abusive language. Taking the totality of
materials on record and facts and circumstances of
the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible
conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and
none else, is responsible for his death.”
11.10 In the case of ‘GEO VARGHESE‘ (Supra),
the Apex Court has held as under in Paragraphs- 21,
34, 39 and 40 ;
“21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan
Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr.,
6 wherein the judgement rendered by the High
Court quashing the FIR under Section 482 was set
aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under
Section 306 IPC stating that the son and daughter-
in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School
where the accused was also a teacher used to make
frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law,
and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the
son of the informant in trying to make the accused
see reason and stop calling, the accused continuedPage 59 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was a verbal
altercation between the son of the informant and the
accused and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide
leaving a note stating that his family life has been
ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned
and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a
petition was filed by the accused challenging the
FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and
thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The
appeal was allowed by this Court and made the
following observations :-
“We now consider the facts of the present case.
There are definite allegations that the first
respondent would keep on calling the wife of the
victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which
allegations are supported by the statements of the
mother and the wife of the victim recorded during
investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior
to the suicide there was an altercation between the
victim and the first respondent. In the light of these
facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note
made definite allegation against first respondent,
the High Court was not justified in entering into
question whether the first respondent had the
requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the
commission of suicide. At this juncture when the
investigation was yet to be completed and charge-
sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court
ought not to have gone into the aspect whether
there was requisite mental element or intention on
part of the respondent.” In the above quoted
observations of this Court, there is a clear indication
that there was a specific averment in the FIR that
the respondent had continuously harassed the
spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct
despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a
matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the
commission of suicide.
XXX XXX XXX
34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of
the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial
pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court
has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to
do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court. The powers being very
wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts,Page 60 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of
this power is based on sound principles. The
inherent power vested in the Court should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary
power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the
said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or
the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed.
XXX XXX XXX
39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned,
despite our minute examination of the same, all we
can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document,
penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the
same also suggests the hyper-sensitive temperament
of the deceased which led him to take such an extra-
ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the
accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not
ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student
to commit suicide.
40. In the absence of any material on record
even, prima-facie, in the FIR or statement of the
complainant, pointing out any such circumstances
showing any such act or intention that he intended
to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be
absurd to even think that the appellant had any
intention to place the deceased in such
circumstances that there was no option available to
him except to commit suicide.
12. In view of the above discussion and in the
facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of
the view that the issue involved in these applications
deserve consideration.
13. Hence, notice, returnable on 15TH JUNE,
2022. Learned APP, Mr. Dabhi, waives service of
notice for the Respondent-State and learned
Page 61 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Advocate, Mr. Rao, waives for Respondent No.2.
13.1 Till the next date of hearing, it shall be open
to the concerned IO / investigating agency to
proceed further with the investigation, however, NO
COERCIVE actions shall be taken against the
present applicants.
13.2 It is, hereby, clarified that the
observations made herein above are
TENTATIVE in nature for grant of interim relief
in favour of the present applicants, since, the
learned Counsels for the parties insisted for the
same.”
29. On the basis of the aforesaid order, another co-ordinate
Bench passed an order dated 7.4.2022 in Criminal Misc.
Application No.6506 of 2022 on the same line and protected the
applicant of the said petition, namely, Prakash Chandulal Patel,
accused No.7.
30. The collective reading of all the above decisions relied
upon by learned Senior Advocates for the applicants would indicate
that for making out a prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC,
the first and foremost requirement is to prove or to prima facie
held the act of abatement under Section 107 IPC mandatory which
is in the form of instigation, engagement by means or with other
person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or the act or a legal
omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and lastly, the intentional
aid by the act or by an illegal omission of doing that thing.
Secondly, the aforesaid decisions also would indicate that there
Page 62 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
must be a proximity cause solitary or continuance which would lead
the deceased person to create a compelling situation to commit
suicide and lastly, such compelling situation should be such that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide.
31. Therefore, the facts of the case are required to be
considered on the basis of ratio laid down in the above referred
decisions. From reading the facts and upon perusal of statement of
witnesses, following facts emerge :-
(i) Key West Developers was owned by accused Nos.1 to 3.
Tuscany The Beach City Project was floated by the accused Nos.1
to 3 and deceased had booked about 1 Lakh Sq. Yds. Of land in the
said Project for himself and his relatives in the year 2007 and made
payment of about Rs.3 Crores.
(ii) Deceased was an advocate by profession and he was
dealing with the Real Estate and land.
(iii) Accused Nos.4 to 7 along with accused Nos.1 to 3
formed new Company Ozone Tuscany Private Limited on 7.12.2009.
However, the deal in respect of alleged 1 Lakh Sq. Yds. Of land
between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3 was already struck
in the year 2007 before the new Company was formed.
(iv) From 2007 till 2022, more precisely 2.3.2022, during
interregnum period of 15 years, though it is stated in the suicide
note that despite repeated requests by the deceased, accused
persons were not ready either for executing the Sale Deed or were
ready to return the amount as per the market value to the
Page 63 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
deceased. However, as per the record, though the deceased
person himself was an Advocate, there was not a single notice
issued even for specific performance or for return of the amount
invested by the deceased person or by any of the investors who
have invested through deceased person. The record also does not
indicate either through suicide note or through statement of any of
the witnesses that immediately before any reasonable time, before
the unfortunate act of suicide was committed by the deceased, at
any point of time, he was threatened or intimidated or abused by
any of the accused persons.
(v) The perusal of suicide note would indicate that at the
top of the suicide note, which is half typed and half hand written,
date mentioned is 28.2.2022 whereas at the end of the suicide note,
in the hand written part, at the bottom of the suicide note also,
date written is 28.2.2022, whereas the suicide was committed on
2.3.2022 i.e. after almost 2 days after the suicide note was written.
Further, the translated version of the suicide note written in
Gujarati language along with part of note which was typed and
hand written is produced in the foregoing paragraphs. If suicide
note is perused and more particularly, typed version, that would
give an indication that the suicide note was prepared on 28.2.2022
was more in the form of a legal notice than suicide note. Of course,
subsequently, there was a hand written addition in the suicide note
as well. But even that part bears the date of 28.2.2022 and does
not indicate any incident which can be said to have any proximity
with the unfortunate act of suicide. All that is stated in the suicide
note is the grievance of the deceased against the present
applicants in respect of a land deal which had taken place in the
year 2007 and for which the applicants were refusing either to
execute the Sale Deed or to return the money back as per the
Page 64 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
market price.
(vii) The record also indicates that apart from suicide notes,
there were as many as nine voice messages, transcripts of which
were produced on record by the applicants and which was not
denied by the learned APP or the first informant. As per the
transcripts of the aforesaid voice messages, somany other persons
also were held responsible for the act of suicide. However, those
voice messages it seems were ignored and only statements of the
persons named in some of the voice messages were recorded and
nothing further in that respect was ever investigated. However,
voice message which was recorded just before the act of
committing suicide names number of other persons as well along
with the present applicants which would prima facie give an idea
that it was not only the present applicants at whose behest a
situation was created that the deceased person was left with no
other option but to commit suicide.
(viii) The aforesaid facts, if are seen in light of the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course
of investigation and which are made available for the perusal of the
Court and were placed on record by learned APP, it shows that
after the land admeasuring 1 Lakh Sq. Yds. were booked in the
year 2007, though the Sale Deed was not executed till 2022, at no
point of time, any legal actions were sought by the deceased person
who himself was an advocate. The record also indicates that there
are no allegations against the present applicants that at any point
of time, immediately before the unfortunate incident took place,
they had collectively or separately or some of them have
threatened, instigated and abused the deceased person which
might have led him to commit suicide.
Page 65 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
(ix) The suicide note bears the date of 28.2.2022 whereas
the suicide was committed on 2.3.2022 which would mean that in
between, the deceased person had at least two days time to think
and change the decision. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
were any compelling circumstances created at the behest of all the
applicants herein which did not left the deceased person with any
other option, but to commit suicide. Therefore, considering the
facts of the case and if those facts are considered in light of the
decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocates appearing
for the applicants, it cannot be said that there was any proximate
cause or the ingredients of Section 107 which can be said to have
been fulfilled in the instant case in respect of allegations against
the present applicants. Further, the record also would indicate
that though the deceased person himself was an Advocate, he
never availed any legal remedies to ensure that for the alleged part
payment made towards the parcel of land, at any point of time, he
availed any legal remedies to ensure that either the Sale Deed is
executed, or amount is repaid.
32. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the
view that no case for invoking Section 306 of IPC can be said to
have been made out against the present applicants.
33. As far as the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC is concerned, the record indicates that at one point of time,
the settlement talks were going on between the parties.
34. Further, when nothing comes on record as to why
despite the reluctance of the present applicants in respect of
executing the Sale Deed, the deceased person did not avail any
Page 66 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
legal remedy, would indicate that when not even a notice was
issued for executing the Sale Deed either by the deceased or by any
of the Investors who have alleged to have invested the amount in
the Company formed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and when there is
nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time, the present
applicants have refused to execute the Sale Deed or to indicate that
full consideration of the land was offered to the present applicants
and despite that, they were reluctant in executing the Sale Deed,
even the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC also cannot be
said to have been made out.
35. As far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and others (supra)
relied upon by learned APP Mr. Raval is concerned, the same is in
respect of quashment of FIR on the basis of settlement arrived at
between the parties. In the instant case, though the complainant
has not opposed the petitions and in fact by way of affidavit has
stated that he does not have any objection if the FIR is quashed,
the Court has considered the matters on merits by not taking into
consideration the consent of the complainant and upon examination
of the merit, the aforesaid opinion has been formed by the Court
and, therefore, the said decision would not be applicable in the
facts of the present case.
36. As far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and another
(Supra) relied upon by learned APP Mr. Raval is concerned, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 has stated that
the instigation has to be gathered from circumstances of a
particular case and, therefore, even after applying the ratio of the
above case, upon examining the circumstances also, no case under
Page 67 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Sections 306 or 406 read with 420 IPC is made out and hence, the
said decision would not be applicable in the facts of the present
case.
37. As far as the last decision relied upon by learned APP of
the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devrajbhai
Khodabhai Sakhiya v. State of Gujarat and others (Supra), in
view of above discussion as the ingredients of Section 107 IPC read
with Section 306 IPC and the facts of the case in view of decisions
referred herein above, as no case for committing an offence under
Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC is made out, the said
decision would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.
38. Further, I have also considered the fact that apart from
the above discussion, what is noteworthy is the fact that the
present applicants case was considered by two coordinate Benches
vide orders dated 17.3.2022 and 7.4.2022 have passed detailed
orders and protected the applicants and thereafter though
investigation was going on, even after thorough investigation, as
there is no sufficient material to implicate the present applicants, I
do not see any reason to take a different view than the view taken
by the coordinate Bench while granting protection to the
applicants, as no case is made out against the applicants.
39. In the result, all these petitions are allowed and the
impugned F.I.R. bearing I – C. R. No.11208003220478 of 2022
registered with Gandhigram-2 (University) Police Station,
Rajkot City filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed
and set aside qua the applicants. Consequently, all other
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and
set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute.
Page 68 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025
undefined
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
Page 69 of 69
Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 22:04:22 IST 2025