[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Giriraj Prasad Goyal vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 11 July, 2025
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 64/2025
GIRIRAJ PRASAD GOYAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
with petitioner in person
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State
SI Chetan, PS- Paschim
Vihar (West)
Mr. Ashwin, Adv. for R2
to R7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 11.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed against the order dated
06.11.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West District, Delhi in SC
No. 222/2021 whereby Respondent Nos. 2-6 were discharged of
the offences under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (‘IPC‘)
2. The FIR No. 89/2019 (‘FIR’) dated 28.02.2019 was
registered on an application preferred by the petitioner/father of
the deceased under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘). Respondent Nos. 2-3 are the parents-
in-law of the deceased, Respondent Nos. 4-5 are the brothers-in-
law and Respondent No. 6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased.
The wife of the deceased was also initially made an accused,
however, subsequent to her demise, the proceedings against her
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
were abated.
3. It is alleged that the marriage between the petitioner’s son
Gaurav Goyal (hereafter ‘the deceased’) and one Ritu (since
deceased) was solemnised on 27.04.2009 according to Hindu
rites and customs. One child namely Vinay Goyal was born out
of the said wedlock on 05.08.2010. It is alleged that the accused
persons mocked the deceased in relation to his financial status. It
is alleged that the wife of the deceased pressurised the deceased
to join her father’s business. It is alleged that the accused persons
also threatened the deceased that they would ruin his life. It is
further alleged that the accused persons abused, threatened and
humiliated the deceased in family functions in the presence of the
relatives.
4. It is alleged that in June, 2014, the wife of the deceased
was diagnosed with breast cancer, and despite the best efforts of
the deceased to provide good medical treatment to his wife, he
was constantly humiliated at the hands of his wife. It is alleged
that the deceased’s wife in collusion with other accused persons
pressurised the deceased to live separately from his family. It is
alleged that even after the deceased started living separately from
his family, the accused persons did not change their behaviour
towards him. It is alleged that the wife of the deceased also
physically assaulted him. It is alleged that on 31.07.2018, the
deceased’s wife left the house without any intimation or
information.
5. It is further alleged that on 02.08.2018, the deceased
received a call from Police Station Vikaspuri in relation to a
complaint filed by his wife regarding custody of their minor son.
It is also alleged that on 02.10.2018, the deceased’s son Vinay
Goyal was playing in front of the house and did not return till
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
7:00 PM after which a complaint was filed by the deceased at
Police Station Mianwali Nagar. It is alleged that no action was
taken by the police officials on the complaint filed by the
deceased. It is alleged that owing to the constant humiliation and
threats given by the accused persons, the deceased was forced to
take his life.
6. After the completion of the investigation, the chargesheet
was filed under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
7. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ discharged the
respondents of the offence under Sections 306/34 of the IPC. It
was noted that the deceased committed suicide by hanging at his
own house on 31.10.2018. It was noted that the deceased’s wife
had left her matrimonial home on 30.07.2018 and had also filed a
complaint of torture at the hands of the deceased and thereafter
had also filed a petition seeking custody of the minor child
against the deceased.
8. The learned ASJ perused the suicide note authored by the
deceased. It was noted that the crux of the entire suicide note was
that the accused persons used to harass the deceased in relation to
them being wealthier than the deceased. It was however noted
that the suicide note was silent on any positive act on the part of
the accused persons whereby the deceased would have been
instigated to commit suicide. It was further noted that there
existed no mention of any act of instigation on the part of the
accused persons. It was noted that no allegations in respect of
abetment to suicide was made against the accused persons. It was
noted that the perusal of the suicide note only led to an inference
that the deceased was not happy as his wife had left his company.
9. It was further noted that there was no evidence to suggest
that any physical meeting of any kind took place between the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
accused persons and the deceased from the date when the
deceased’s wife left her matrimonial home. It was noted that
admittedly the accused persons and the deceased only met one
time when the deceased asked the accused persons to send his
wife to her matrimonial home.
10. During the course of the investigation, the statement of the
minor son Vinay was also recorded wherein he narrated that the
deceased was violent and used to physically assault his mother
and abuse his maternal grandparents. He stated that the deceased
used to consume liquor and also visit casinos.
11. The learned ASJ noted that there was no evidence on
record to show that any physical meetings ever took place
between the accused persons or the family members of the
deceased from where it could be inferred that the accused persons
may have harassed the deceased in a manner for the deceased to
commit suicide. It was further noted that there was no evidence
of any telephonic conversation between the accused persons and
the deceased for there to be any abetment in the alleged
commission of suicide.
12. The learned ASJ noted that from a perusal of the
chargesheet it was evident that the nature of dispute between the
deceased and his wife was domestic in nature. It was noted that
during the course of investigation, the Principal of Vinay’s
school was also examined who stated that she had provided
counselling to Vinay Goyal, who upon enquiry, had said that his
father used to consume liquor and beat her. Consequently,
considering the dearth of evidence on record to suggest that the
accused persons had any active role in the abetment of suicide of
the deceased, the learned ASJ discharged the respondents of the
offences under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned ASJ erred in discharging the respondents. He submits
that specific allegations of harassment were made against
Respondent Nos. 2-6. He submits that the same raises grave
suspicion against the accused persons for the framing of charge
under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the impugned order is well reasoned and merits no
interference by this Court. He submits that during the pendency
of the case in which the impugned order has been passed, the
parties had entered into a settlement and had inter se settled the
disputes and had also approached this Court for quashing of the
FIR. He submits that on that occasion, after brief arguments,
Respondent Nos. 2-6 had sought permission to withdraw the
quashing petition and that this Court, by order dated 08.08.2023
in CRL. M.C. 5590/2023 had dismissed the petition seeking
quashing of the FIR as withdrawn with liberty to Respondent
Nos. 2-6 to raise all contentions at the time of consideration of
charge.
15. He submits that the learned ASJ, after taking note of the
allegations and the contentions of the petitioner discharged
Respondent Nos. 2-6 thereby noting that no grave suspicion arose
against Respondent Nos. 2-6 for the framing of charges under
Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
Analysis
16. Since the petitioner has assailed the impugned order
whereby the respondents were discharged of the offences under
Sections 306/34 of the IPC, it will be apposite to succinctly
discuss the statutory law with respect to framing of charge and
discharge as provided under Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
The same is set out below:
“227. Discharge If, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
228. Framing of Charge
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the
Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence which–
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may,
frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer
the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 [or any
other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the
accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or,
as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class,
on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]
shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the
trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in
writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of
subsection (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the
accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads
guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar v.
CBI : (2010) 9 SCC 368, has culled out the following principles
in respect of the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC
while observing that a prima facie case would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant paragraphs
read as under :
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused
has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case
would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the court, any basic
infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on
the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at
that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the
broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and
at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in
conviction or acquittal.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In a recent decision in State of Gujarat v.
DilipsinhKishorsinh Rao : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the parameters that would be
appropriate to keep in mind at the stage of framing of
charge/discharge, as under:
“7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being
necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by
the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be
necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by
examining the defence of the accused when an application
for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to
merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in
order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient
to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet
material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected byThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
the investigating agency or the documents produced in which
prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice
and such material would be taken into account for the
purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the
accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the
opinion, after such consideration of the material there are
grounds for presuming that accused has committed the
offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be
framed.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of
charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at
this stage, the probative value of materials on record need
not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier
decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa,
(1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni,
(2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be
made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to
test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the
stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a
presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go
deep into probative value of the material on record and to
check whether the material on record would certainly lead to
conviction at the conclusion of trial.”
19. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is to evaluate
the material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts
constitute the alleged offence, given the ingredients of the
offence. Thus, while framing of charges, the Court ought to look
at the limited aspect of whether, given the material placed before
it, there is grave suspicion against the accused which is not
properly explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the
same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
20. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that
the learned ASJ took into consideration the contentions advanced
by the petitioners. The short point for determination by this Court
is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned order whereby
the learned ASJ discharged the respondents of the offences under
Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
21. The allegations against the respondents are that they
abetted in the commission of suicide of the deceased. In this
regard, it is pertinent to examine Sections 306 and 107 of the
IPC. The same 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 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.”
22. In accordance with Section 306 of the IPC, whoever abets
in the commission of suicide would be liable for abetment of
suicide. Further, for there to be ‘abetment’ as per Section 107 of
the IPC, the person abetting in the commission of the act has to
‘instigate’ any person to commit any act, ‘engage with one or
more persons for the doing of the act’, or intentionally aid in the
doing of the act.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shenbagavalli and
Ors v. The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District And
Anr. : 2025 INSC 607 while delineating the ingredients of
abetment of suicide observed 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 withThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
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 the 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. From a perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that
no prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC was made out
against the respondents. The genesis of the present case stems
from the suicide note authored by the deceased wherein the
deceased has alleged that he was harassed and tortured at the
hands of Respondent Nos. 2-6 in relation to his financial status.
The suicide note further indicates that the deceased and his wife
were in a strained relationship. From a perusal of the suicide
note, it is apparent that while the same reflects the anguish that
the deceased faced in his matrimonial life, the same however
fails to disclose any instigation or intentional aid on the part of
the respondents to lead the deceased to commit suicide. Further,
as rightly noted by the learned ASJ, there is no mention of any
act on the part of the accused persons or any specific allegations
against any accused persons to constitute instigation for the
purpose of commission of the suicide. The suicide note only
indicates that the accused persons harassed the deceased in
relation to his financial status.
25. It is borne out from the record that the deceased and his
wife were embroiled in matrimonial disputes. However, as
rightly noted by the learned ASJ, there existed no evidence on
record to arose grave suspicion from where it could be inferred
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
that the accused persons may have harassed the deceased in a
manner for the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there is no
evidence of any telephonic conversation or any physical meetings
between the accused persons or the family members of the
deceased to highlight any instigation any part of the accused
persons in the commission of suicide. The contents of the FIR
also fail to indicate any active or direct act on the part of
Respondent Nos. 2-6 that can be said to have compelled the
deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the accused persons
harassed the deceased in relation to his financial status and the
strained relationship between the parties does not tantamount to
mean that the accused persons abetted in the commission of
suicide. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC, there ought to be evidence to suggest that the accused
persons by such acts intended to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide [Ref: Shenbagavalli and Ors v. The Inspector Of Police,
Kancheepuram District And Anr.]
26. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order,
and the material on record, it is apparent that there is no grave
suspicion against the accused which was not properly explained.
In the opinion of this Court, no prima facie case is made out
against the respondent under Sections 306/34 of the IPC.
27. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the
petitioner, during the pendency of the case before the learned
Trial Court, had entered into a settlement with Respondent Nos.
2-6 in respect of the allegations made in the subject FIR. The
settlement agreement records that the FIR was registered on
account of extreme emotional trauma faced by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the parties vide CRL. M.C. 5590/2023 had
approached this Court for quashing of the subject FIR. By order
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
dated 08.08.2023, this Court dismissed the said quashing petition
as withdrawn on the request of Respondent Nos. 2-6 with liberty
to them to raise all contentions before the learned Trial Court. It
is peculiar that the petitioner is now seeking to contest the
discharge of the accused respondents, after having earlier settled
the matter of their own will.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the impugned order, and the same cannot be
faulted with.
29. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 11, 2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 21:56:29
[ad_2]
Source link