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.

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 :-

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.

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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.

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

[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 :-

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 :-

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under :-

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.

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 :-

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 :-

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 :-

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 ;

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.

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 :-

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.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/6506/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/08/2025 undefined Direct service is permitted.

(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