R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10262 of 2025 ========================================================== NARSINHBHAI MANIYABHAI RATHVA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MAHESHKUMAR S VASAVA(9394) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 24/07/2025 ORAL ORDER “Law is the king of kings. Nothing is mightier than law. With its aid, even the weak can prevail over the strong.” – Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11184006250144 of 2025 registered with Kawant Police Station, Chhotaudepur and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 implicated in it. That the compliant filed by the complainant, on the face of it, does not constitute any offence against the present petitioner. Even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are accepted to be true in their entirety, without admitting the same to be true, no offence is made out against the present petitioner. It is submitted that all the allegations made by the complainant are absurd, baseless, untrue, and vindictive in nature. The present petitioner is serving as a Sarpanch, and with a view to harm his reputation and prevent him from contesting the election, he has been falsely implicated in the complaint. Therefore, it is submitted that the name of the present petitioner, which has been wrongly shown as an accused in the complaint, may be quashed and set aside. The allegations levelled against the present petitioner have never occurred. The petitioner himself is a senior citizen, suffering from multiple health ailments. At the time of the mediation between the two groups, the petitioner had always appealed to all concerned to maintain peace and remain calm. However, both groups, on their own, continued levelling allegations against each other. It is pertinent to note that both groups had come to the house of the petitioner, where he only attempted to intervene to maintain peace. The petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case with vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and the complainant has wrongly implicated him. It is submitted that the trial would be futile, and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the proceeding of the FIR qua the present petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise, the inclusion of the name of the present R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 petitioner as an accused in the F.I.R. is erroneous and prima facie politically motivated, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned APP has strongly opposed the present application, asserting that the applicants are involved in the offence. It is submitted that the role of present applicant, who is the Sarpanch of the village, is not only peripheral but central in the chain of events leading to the unfortunate death of the deceased Rahul. On 14.01.2025, the applicant, along with other co-accused, came to Kayadi village in two vehicles searching for the deceased and forcibly took the complainant (mother of the deceased) to Motisakhal village at his residence, thereby actively participating in the illegal confinement and intimidation of the complainant and her family. Further, on 20.01.2025, the accused applicant called the complainant and her brother-in-law to his house, where a meeting with the co-accused and family members of Priteshaben was conducted, during which the accused exerted undue pressure on the deceased Rahul and his wife to separate and threatened social boycott if they failed to do so, demonstrating a clear role in harassment and mental torture. On 09.02.2025, the applicant, along with co-accused forcibly took the deceased Rahul to his house and coerced him into signing certain documents against his will. The complainant further alleges that the deceased was physically assaulted by the accused applicant and others during this period. On 10.02.2025, when the complainant approached the applicant’s, the applicant is alleged to have slapped the complainant and categorically threatened her not to enter his premises, thereby displaying his R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 active participation in intimidating the family. It is submitted that the continuous mental and physical harassment, instigation, and coercion inflicted upon the deceased and the complainant by the applicant, in conspiracy with other co- accused, directly contributed to the circumstances that led to the deceased taking the extreme step of committing suicide. The material collected during the investigation prima facie reveals the active and intentional involvement of the accused applicant in the commission of the offence. The applicant is absconder since long. Investigation is still pending and at nascent stage. Therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents on record, it appears that the complainant, has three children, including the deceased Rahulbhai (aged 22), who was working in Vadodara. The deceased Rahul fell in love with Priteshaben and they married with mutual consent on 11.07.2024 at Bhathiji Maharaj Temple, Jabughod, and registered their marriage. Despite this, Priteshaben’s family opposed the marriage. On 14.01.2025, village Sarpanch Nar Singhbhai Manishabhai Rathwa applicant herein, along with other co-accused family forcibly took the complainant to the Sarpanch’s house while searching for the couple. Priteshaben’s family forcibly took Rahul and Priteshaben from their room. On 20.01.2025, at the present applicant- Sarpanch’s house, a meeting was held where the Sarpanch and others pressured Rahul and Priteshaben to separate, threatening social boycott if they refused. On 09.02.2025, Priteshaben’s father and other relatives came to the complainant’s house, R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 abused and assaulted Rahul, and forcibly took him to the applicant’s house where he was beaten and forced to sign papers under pressure. Due to continuous harassment, threats, and physical assault by the applicant and co-accused, the deceased, Rahul, was driven to commit suicide, even though the accused had succeeded in separating the married couple. Between the night of 09.02.2025 and 11.02.2025, deceased Rahul was found hanging from a neem tree near a well on Amarsinghbhai Nayakbhai Rathwa’s farm, leading to the present complaint against the accused persons for abetment of suicide and other offences. 6. In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that the present applicant played an active role in tracing out the son of the complainant and in pressuring the complainant to compel her son to divorce his wife. During the search for the complainant’s son, the present applicant, along with other co- accused, assaulted the complainant’s husband. Further, on 20th January 2025, the accused persons gathered at the residence of the present applicant, where they imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the complainant under the guise of a settlement and obtained the signature of the deceased on a blank paper. Even though the entire issue had got over, the accused persons subsequently assaulted the complainant and her family members. On 10th February 2025, the accused persons forcibly expelled the deceased from the village. Hence, being aggrieved by the day-to-day harassment, the deceased had no option except to commit suicide, and prima facie involvement of the present applicant is made out, as the deceased was subsequently found R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 dead under suspicious circumstances. The proximate cause of abetment and instigation is clearly revealed from the investigation papers. 7. In view of the above, the acts of abetment and instigation clearly reveal the intention of the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, sharing a common intention, traced the deceased and the daughter of the co- accused after they had eloped and married of their own free will and volition, despite both being majors. However, instead of accepting their lawful marriage, the petitioner and the co- accused harassed them and forcibly separated them. They administered threats and assaulted the deceased and his family members, causing grievous injuries. They further kidnapped the deceased and his wife, wrongfully detained them, and forcibly separated them against their will.. 8. Thereafter, further threats were administered to the complainant, and the accused persons insulted the complainant and her family members. Considering that the present applicant is the Sarpanch of the village, the complainant and her family members found themselves helpless due to his high-handedness. The petitioner’s overt acts clearly emerge from the allegations levelled in the FIR, which are supported by the material collected during the investigation. The statements of two witnesses also support the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, due to the continuous stress and harassment, the deceased, having no option left, committed suicide. On perusal of the investigation R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 papers, it clearly reveals that the present applicant not only instigated the deceased but also played an active role in forcibly attempting a settlement between the complainant and the accused persons. Thereafter, the petitioner and the co-accused approached the complainant’s home, assaulted them, and inflicted injuries, and the role of the applicant in these incidents clearly comes on record. 9. So far as Section 137(2) BNS is concerned, the material on record clearly reveals that the petitioner and the co-accused kidnapped the deceased, and therefore, this section is attracted. So far as Section 189(2) BNS and Section 115(2) BNS are concerned, it appears that the petitioner, along with the co- accused, gathered, administered threats, and inflicted injuries upon the deceased and his family members, and therefore, these sections are attracted. Regarding Section 127(2) BNS, as discussed above, the documents on record clearly reveal that the petitioner and the co-accused wrongfully confined the deceased and forcibly separated him from his wife, and hence, this section is also attracted. Regarding Section 351(2) BNS and Section 296(b) BNS, it is revealed from the material on record that the petitioner and the co-accused, time and again, threatened the deceased and his family members and used derogatory language against them. 10. In the present case, such incidents occurred, and due to concerns regarding alleged honour and status in society after the deceased married the accused’s daughter, the accused, along R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 with the present petitioner, constantly harassed the deceased, as a result of which the complainant lost her son. It is needless to say that 'life is dear one'. The growing culture of violence, extortion and exploitation in society sends shock-waves through the civilized world. When such incidents occur or continue, there is a constant erosion of basic human values, such as tolerance and the spirit of 'live and let live.' The perpetuation of such crimes, which result in the loss of fie, raises serious concerns. So far as the role of the present petitioner in the offence of instigation is concerned, there is concrete evidence indicating the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence. The present petitioner, being a Sarpanch, misused his position and effectively instigated the deceased, leaving him with no option but to commit suicide. The conduct of the petitioner in the present offence is akin to that of a feudal aristocrat. 11. The Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein the Court expressed concern over incidents of torture, threats, and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, observing that such actions are not only illegal but also shameful. 12. It is also appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405, wherein the Court observed that upon attaining majority, every individual becomes independent and acquires the right to marry a person of their choice. Page 8 of 11 R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 13. In cases of indirect involvement in acts of instigation leading to the commission of suicide, such acts would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 117. Therefore, this is not a case where the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive, to settle scores, or with any mala fide intention. 14. Further reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, reported AIR 2023 SC(Criminal) 1101. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2022 OnLine SC 484, it is observed and held by the Apex Court that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained and hold mini trial. 15. It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 528 of the BNSS is warranted. It is true that the powers under 528 of the BNSS are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise 16. Further, criminal proceeding would have to proceed entirely based on the allegations made in a complaint or the evidence collected during the investigation. It is not justified to R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 embark inquiry or to hold mini trial qua genuineness or credibility of the material collected during the investigation and Court cannot go into correctness or otherwise of the material collected by the prosecution. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Ors. reported in 2023 Live Law 642 (3 Judges’ Bench) as mini-trial is not permitted while exercising jurisdiction under Section of 528 of the BNSS. 17. This Court court deems it proper to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastruecture Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 wherein, the Apex Court has observed that: “iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 528 BNSS is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;” 18. Considering the aforesaid facts, the application stands dismissed. Observations made herein above are tentative in R/SCR.A/10262/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial. Learned Trial Court shall have to decide the allegations levelled in the complaint on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. 19. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/07/2025 18:09:47