Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 984 (GUJ)

Ramanlal Valjibhai Makwana v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-23

ILESH J.VORA

body2024
ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicants-original accused have preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11191008210708 of 2021 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable with Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This Court has heard Mr. Smit Vaghela for Mr. Sandip Patel, learned advocate for the applicants and State Counsel Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. Mehul Surati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 did not turn up for hearing when the matter was called out and was also informed by the Counsel appearing for the applicant herein. However, the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No.2-complainant has been considered. 4. The brief facts giving rise to file the present application are that, the husband of the second respondent Manish Ramanlal Makwana has committed suicide by hanging himself at his house. The said incident happened on 29.4.2021. On 3.6.2021, the wife of the deceased- second respondent has lodged an FIR against the applicants, who are parents and family members of the deceased, inter alia, alleging that due to property dispute, the deceased was subjected to harassment, mentally and physically, as a result, he committed suicide, for which the accused are responsible, as they have abetted and aided the deceased in committing the suicide. In the FIR, it is alleged that after marriage, which took place in 2003, she was mentally and physically harassed on the petty issues of house-hold work, as a result, she had filed a complaint in the year 2010 against the applicants-accused wherein, with the intervention of the elderly persons, a compromise was arrived at and thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home. The house in which they are residing, is in the name of father-in-law and mother-in-law. The accused have intentionally decided not to give any right in the property, as a result, the husband deceased was under depression. The parents of the deceased, by public notice, informed everybody that their son is not in their control. A suit was also filed for permanent injunction and declaration against the deceased. The accused have intentionally decided not to give any right in the property, as a result, the husband deceased was under depression. The parents of the deceased, by public notice, informed everybody that their son is not in their control. A suit was also filed for permanent injunction and declaration against the deceased. It is further alleged that due to continuous harassment and boycott of the deceased from the Society, the deceased was under pressure and depression and before he committed suicide, he had also sent message that if anything happens to his life, the accused would be responsible. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is alleged that accused are responsible for the suicide as they have played positive and active role in the commission of the suicide. 6. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation carried out by the Police and finally the charge-sheet came to be filed, before the Court concerned. The applicants made draft amendment and have also challenged the charge-sheet filed by the Police. 7. Mr. S.P.Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that the FIR and charge-sheet case papers lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged; that the facts and circumstances of the case do not in any way, indicate that the alleged act would constitute abetment to commit a suicide; that there is complete absence of any sort of instigation or any positive move on the part of the applicants, causing the deceased to commit suicide; that the ingredients of the abetment, as laid down in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, is completely absent in this case and considering the allegations made in the FIR, as well as the material collected during the course of investigation, do not establish or suggest that there was intention on the part of the applicants, to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased in committing the suicide and, therefore, in absence of any material with respect to the charge of abetment of suicide, merely allegations of harassment are not sufficient to draw inference that the accused have abetted in the commission of suicide. 8. 8. In view of the aforesaid contention, it is submitted that the FIR was being filed after long time without any explanation of such delay, with ulterior motive and to harass the applicants and, therefore, when prima-facie no case is made out for the alleged offence against the applicants, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, would be nothing but sheer harassment and abuse of process of law and Court. 9. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the application, has contended that, there is sufficient material for the commission of alleged offence and, therefore, at this stage, the disputed question of facts, cannot be examined by this Court. Thus, therefore, where there is a prima- facie case made out for the commission of the offence, the Court may not exercise its inherent powers. 10. As observed, Mr. Surati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, did not remained present to assist the Court, however, the contentions, as raised, have been denied by the second respondent in her affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit, the reference of the telephonic conversation is being made to contend that the deceased was unnecessarily harassed by the applicants and he had disclosed that the applicants will be responsible if anything happens to his life. 11. Considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the contentions of the affidavit-in-reply and also perused the allegations made in the FIR and material in the form of charge-sheet papers. 12. The issue falls for the consideration of this Court as to whether the FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC? 13. In order to determine the issue, this Court will take a note of following undisputed facts: i) The marriage of the second respondent with deceased Manish was solemnized in the year 2003. In the year 2010, the wife had lodged a complaint against the husband and his parents for the offence of cruelty and demand of dowry. Due to compromise, the Court of Gandhinagar, acquitted the husband and parents and others. ii) Since 2010, the deceased and his wife lived separately and the house in which they hade lived, belongs to the parents. Due to compromise, the Court of Gandhinagar, acquitted the husband and parents and others. ii) Since 2010, the deceased and his wife lived separately and the house in which they hade lived, belongs to the parents. The parents of the deceased, by public notice, cautioned the public at large that their son Manish is not in his control and they have no any relation with him. The mother being a owner of the property, filed a suit in 2012 against the son deceased. iii) The applicant No.3 to 6 are married sister-in- laws and their respective husbands, and are living separately at the address mentioned in the cause- title of this petition. iv) The husband Manish was doing driving work and since 2010, he did not have co-ordial relationship with the parents as there was a dispute with regard to property and other issues. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of Court’s power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The inherent powers of the High Court has been conferred with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In any case, solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit the prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335. The para-102 of the judgment reads thus: “102. The Court cannot permit the prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335. The para-102 of the judgment reads thus: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code 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 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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 of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (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 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. (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 fides 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.” 15. In the present case, the applicants have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. To bring home the accused for the charge under Section 306, the prosecution has to prove (i) the deceased committed suicide (ii) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide and (iii) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment as comprising (a) instigation to commit the offence (b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and (c) aiding the commission of offence. The scope and ambit of Section 107 and its corelation with Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (10) SCC 797 , the two judge Bench of the Apex Court in para 6, while defining the abetment of things held as under:- “Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.” 16. In light of the settled proposition of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case, this Court is of considered view that, the allegations as well as material in the form of charge-sheet accepted in its entirety, do not attract the ingredients of the abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In light of the settled proposition of law and applying the same to the facts of the present case, this Court is of considered view that, the allegations as well as material in the form of charge-sheet accepted in its entirety, do not attract the ingredients of the abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. My reasons for such conclusion are that, the father-in-law has passed away during the pendency of this proceedings; due to attitude and bad habits of the deceased, the parents, by public notice, informed the Society that, please do not enter into any transaction with the deceased son and we have decided not to give any right in their property; since 2010 the husband-wife had lived separately; the sister-in-laws and their husbands have nothing to do with the property dispute and there is no any allegation made against them that they are responsible for the said suicide; the invocation of Section 498A after the acquittal of the trial Court, would indicative of the facts that, the allegations have been made casually by making vague and general allegations with a view to harass the applicants; the house in which the deceased had lived, is of the ownership of the mother; the incident of suicide took place on 29.4.2021 for which the FIR was being filed on 3.6.2021 i.e. after delay of two months and there is no any satisfactory explanation for such delay. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of prima- facie view that the property dispute, as referred in the FIR, which might be a reason of harassment to the deceased, but at the same time it is required to be considered that mere harrasment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to time of accusance which led to suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In such circumstances, the allegations as well as material placed on record, prima-facie would not constitute an offence of abetment to commit suicide and thus, the allegations for the charge of offence under Section 306, 498(A) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, accepted in its entirety, do not prima-facie disclose the offence alleged or make out any case against the applicants. 18. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, the case is fully covered by the categories (i) and (vii) as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and therefore, this Court is convinced that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court and law. 19. For the reasons aforementioned, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The FIR being C.R. No. 11191008210708 of 2021 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable with Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings thereto against the present applicants are quashed and set-aside. Direct service permitted.