A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of thing, made against the applicants would not fall within the term ‘instigation’: Gujarat High Court

Pravinbhai Jivrambhai Deria vs State Of Gujarat on 23 May, 2023

Bench: Honourable Justice Ilesh J. Vora

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11161 of 2016

Facts

In the instant case, the second respondent had filed a complaint on behalf of the deceased(his brother) who committed suicide at his village. The deceased was driving a rickshaw for his livelihood. He had borrowed Rs.6 lakh from accused Nos.1 to 10 and was paying unbearable amount of interest. The deceased, however could not repay the principal amount as well as the interest, as a result, he was under tremendous pressure and distress. Before he could commit suicide, he wrote a letter addressed to PSI, Gadh Police Station, mentioning therein the harassment meted out to him by the accused, on the issue of borrowed money. He mentioned that the accused did not extend the time to repay the money and threatened him to take away his rickshaw and did not allow him to do his business.

In this circumstance, the deceased Hasmukhbhai consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. Being in critical condition, he was taken to Palanpur Civil Hospital where his statement in the form of dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Palanpur, wherein, he disclosed the facts of borrowed money allegedly taken from persons named in the statement. The investigating officer had also recorded the statement of the deceased on the same day under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, the reasons for his suicide having been disclosed before the police and subsequently, he died at Civil Hospital. Under section 161, an investigating officer may orally examine any witness where such person is acquainted with the facts of the case.

The second respondent based on the input gathered by him at the hospital, lodged an FIR against 10 persons, including the applicants. After completion of investigation of the case, the IO filed a chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

The applicants have instituted the case to quash the petition mainly on the ground that the charge against them under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and the continuation of the proceedings against them is nothing, but a sheer abuse of process of law and Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the FIR lacks the ingredients of section 306 of IPC(Abetment of suicide) as there is an absence of any sort of instigation or any positive move on the part of the applicants, causing the deceased to commit suicide

On the other hand, the counsel for the informant contended that since material evidence like the suicide note, dying declaration has been recovered, there is a prima facie case made out against the applicants.

Judgement

The honourable judge, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case held that the accusations of harassment and preventing the deceased in doing his business of rickshaw driving seem to be general in nature and vague. There are no specific allegations made against the applicants that they individually subjected mental harassment on the issue of finance advanced by them. In such circumstances, prima facie it appears that the deceased was in depression as he could not repay the handy loan obtained from various persons, as a result, he decided to end his life.

The contents of the suicide note and the statement of the deceased does not anyway disclose any incriminating information in the nature of instigation, provocation or compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Due to these reasons, the Court quashed the FIR against the applicants

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement