ORDER : 1. The present revision applications have been filed praying to quash and set aside the order dated 09.07.2024 passed below Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-4 respectively in Sessions Case No.4 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Court, Aravalli at Modasa, and also prayed to discharge the applicants from the charges punishable under sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The FIR being FIR No.11188006230472 of 2023 was registered before the Malpur Police Station, Dist. Arvalli on 24.08.2023, under sections 306 and 114 of IPC. 3. The facts of the case, as was noted are that the minor daughter of the applicants was alleged to have been abducted and kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of applicant no.1, by the son of original complainant namely Vishal S/o. Somabhai Kalabhai Parmar. Having come to know of the said fact on 16.08.2023, a complaint being FIR No.0443/2023 was registered with Malpur Police Station, Dist. Aravalli for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. and under section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POSCO’ for short). Thereafter, on 18.08.2023, the applicant no.1 had registered another complaint bearing Cr.No.II- 0449/2023 with Malpur Police Station, Dist. Aravalli for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC against the original complainant of the present matter, her son and her husband. 3.1 As per the facts, on 21.08.2023, original complainant and her son Jigar S/o Somabhai Chamar, both had appeared to the Malpur Police Station to record the statement, but husband of the complainant did not appear before the Malpur Police Station, and thereafter on 24.08.2024, the original complainant lodged the present FIR, which is impugned in the present matter. In connection to the same, discharge has been prayed under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mr. Jigar D.Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, relied on the judgment of Samir Bipinbhai Maradiya @ Vaniya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (1) G.L.H. 469 and Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered on 01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023, to submit that there is no proximate cause to connect the present applicants with the suicide of the husband of the complainant. 4.1 Advocate Mr. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (1) G.L.H. 469 and Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered on 01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023, to submit that there is no proximate cause to connect the present applicants with the suicide of the husband of the complainant. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Jigar D.Dave stated that on 21.08.2023, when the original complainant and her son had appeared before the Malpur Police Station, the deceased did not appear before the Malpur Police Station, and thereafter 24.08.2024, an FIR came to be lodged. Mr. Dave, thus, stated that the incident has started from 15.08.2023 and till 24.08.2024, there is no any proximate cause or any connection to show that the present applicants had abetted the commission of offence. Mr. Dave stated that the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure. 4.2 Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that, to bring the case under section 306, as observed by this Court in earlier matter of Samir Bipinbhai Maradiya @ Vaniya (supra), the process of instigation must be explicitly alleged, and the words ‘uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention’, cannot be termed as instigation. 5. Referring to the facts of the case, relying on the report, Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP, submitted that all the accused on 16.08.2023 came to the house of the complainant and had asked them to find their daughter, who was alleged to have been abducted by her son Vishal, and had threatened them to find her and return her back to them otherwise to vacate the house, and unless and until their daughter is not found, they would not allow them to enter the village, and if at all they would come, then they would burn their house. 5.1 Mr. Mehta, learned APP, submitted that such mental harassment had been caused by the present applicants. Mr. Mehta stated that rather than allowing the police to undertake the necessary process, where already FIR had been filed under the POSCO Act, they ought to have waited for the result of the FIR under POSCO Act. 6. Countering the argument, Advocate Mr. Mehta, learned APP, submitted that such mental harassment had been caused by the present applicants. Mr. Mehta stated that rather than allowing the police to undertake the necessary process, where already FIR had been filed under the POSCO Act, they ought to have waited for the result of the FIR under POSCO Act. 6. Countering the argument, Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that there are variations in the facts of the complainant, as according to her, she had not been with her husband for the last seven days, and she was informed by some third some person that her husband has committed suicide, which itself proves that ingredients of instigation or abetment by the present applicants would not get attract. 7. The fact suggests that the original complainant and her son Jigar, both had appeared before the Malpur Police Station to give their statements. The factum of threat given by the present applicants are supported by the statement of Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Parmar, Jayantibhai Gobarbhai Parmar, Khanabhai Dharmabhai Parmar Vechatbhai Lebabhai Chamar. 8. As noted by the learned Sessions Judge, the son of the complainant Vishal had love affairs with the daughter of Sureshbhai Revabhai Parmar, the minor, and both the families were staying opposite to each other. On 15.08.2023, both had eloped without informing any of the family members, and therefore, father of the minor had filed a complaint against Vishal Somabhai Parmar under sections 363 and 366 of IPC and section 12 of POSCO Act. 9. Learned APP has submitted that Vishal is now no more, and as per the accident death report, deceased Vishal has committed suicide in a hotel room. Referring to the police report, learned APP states that both of them i.e. Vishal and daughter of Suresh Revabhai Parmar had attempted to commit suicide by hanging themselves with the ceiling with aid of ‘Duppata’, but the daughter of Suresh Revabhai Parmar’s life got save because the ‘Duppata’ was not tight, which gave her the benefit. 10. Learned APP stated that because of threat of present applicants, the deceased i.e. husband of the complainant could not bear the threat and had committed suicide in his own house. 10. Learned APP stated that because of threat of present applicants, the deceased i.e. husband of the complainant could not bear the threat and had committed suicide in his own house. Learned APP stated that the elopement of the children was made a big issue by the present applicants, and instead of submitting themselves to the process of law and keeping trust on the investigation, or at the most could have filed a habeas corpus petition, the applicants took law in their hands, and had created an atmosphere of threat, which was an instigation to the deceased, which has led to his death. 11. The allegation, as per the proceedings in the form of FIR registered, shows that the minor daughter of Sureshbhai Revabhai Parmar, aged about 16 years 10 months and 14 days, was alleged to have been abducted by deceased Vishal Somabhai Chamar, and since they had eloped, the applicants had threatened them of the consequences, as referred herein that, if they would not search their daughter and return her back to them, they should vacate the house, and unless and until their daughter is not returned back, they should not enter the village, and if at all they would come, their house would be burned. 11.1 This act stated to be the direct act, which has caused the deceased to commit suicide. The statement of other witnesses also supports this fact. The complainant has lost her husband as well as son, who both have committed suicide. 12. In view of the facts of the case, there is clear prima facie case against the applicants, and, therefore this Court does not find any reason to entertain both the applications, hence, the same stand rejected. 13. Office to keep copy of this order in Criminal Revision Application No.1100 of 2024.