IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21932 of 2025 ================================================================ KARANBHAI @ KATTO VIHABHAI MER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR PITAMBER ABICHANDANI for MS POONAM M MAHETA(11265) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 20/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla waives service of notice of rule for and behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Ms.Poonam Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 – complainant. 2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information p. 2 Report No.11193034240308 of 2024 lodged before the Lathi Police Station, District Amreli, for the offence punishable under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the alleged incident had occurred on 17.12.2024 and the complaint was registered on 21.12.2024 by the father of the deceased. It further appears that initially an entry regarding accidental death was recorded, and during the investigation of the accidental death, the statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded. The reasons stated by the Investigating Officer in the accidental death is that the deceased was under a dilemma as to how to visit her maternal uncle’s house at Surat as her maternal grandfather had died over there, and due to the said reason, she was under constant depression and, therefore, she committed suicide by hanging herself with the ‘chundadi’ (a long scarf-like cloth worn by women to cover their head and shoulders) fastened with a hook (crotchet) in the room. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant (i.e. the father of the deceased) had, on 18.12.2024, discovered a p. 3 two-page suicide note from a cutlery box from his home, through which, he learned that his daughter was having an affair with one Karan (i.e. the present applicant-accused) and because Karan’s family members were opposed to their relationship, his daughter was remaining distressed and, therefore, she committed suicide by hanging herself with the ‘chundadi’ fastened with a hook in the room. The complainant, in the complaint, has stated that as his daughter might later on came to know that Karan is married, therefore, she took the extreme step of ending her life by committing suicide. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pitamber Abichandani for Ms.Poonam Maheta, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-accused and learned APP Ms.Krina Calla appearing for the respondent – State. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani, while referring to the suicide note, has submitted that there is nothing to even remotely suggest that the present applicant-accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. On the contrary, the suicide note reveals that the deceased was having intimacy and p. 4 affection with the present applicant. However, the family members of the applicant-accused were opposed to their relationship. In the suicide note also, the deceased has stated the same thing that since the family members of the applicant were against their relationship, the applicant had informed his family that if he would not be permitted to live with her, then he will die, however, the family members were reluctant, therefore, they both had decided to end their lives, whereupon the deceased took an extreme step of committing suicide. Learned advocate has submitted that there was no instigation or incitement or abetment on the part of the present applicant to the deceased in committing suicide. The suicide note itself suggests that the deceased was feeling distress and disappointment, due to which she committed suicide. There is no specific act, abuse, coercion, threat, or incitement on the part of the present applicant, which may amount to abetment as contemplated under law. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani, while pointing out to the statement of the friend of the applicant-accused, namely, Devjibhai @ Ajay Bhupatbhai Sabhad, has submitted that on the fateful day of the incident, the applicant-accused and his friend p. 5 had gone to meet the deceased at her field on the motorcycle, and thereafter, they went to another field of the deceased, where two persons from the deceased’s village had seen them altogether on a motorcycle, and on the very same day, the deceased had committed suicide. Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani has, therefore, submitted that there are all possibilities that because of the fear that the village people might tell about the said incident to her family, she might have committed suicide. Mr.Abichandani has further submitted that the evidence is silent as to what had happened soon before the incident at the house of the deceased. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani has submitted that the FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant with the alleged offence. The prosecution has remained silent as to what had happened soon before the incident. Learned advocate has further submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicant and the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been proved. He has further submitted that except the statement of the complainant, there is no other evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged p. 6 offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicant, and the FIR, even if it is considered at its face value, the same could not even establish the offence as alleged in the FIR. 9. Learned advocate Mr.Abichandani has, therefore, urged that considering the above, the application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside. 10. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that having regard to the gravamen and seriousness of the offence, the application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected. 11. Learned advocate Mr.Kuldeep D.Vaidya appearing for the respondent no.2 – complainant, while vehemently opposing the present application, has adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned APP and has submitted that the present application may be rejected. 12. It is settled that to attract Section 107 of the Act, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit p. 7 suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in proximity to the act of committing suicide. In the present case, it prima facie appears from the suicide note by the deceased that she committed suicide out of distress and there was no act of incitement or instigation or abetment on the part of the present application in committing suicide by the deceased. 13. The position of law insofar as the abetment of suicide is concerned, is well-settled. Even if the entire case put up by the prosecution is accepted as it is, without adding anything or subtracting, this Court is of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 107 of the Act, are borne out. Only because of the fact that the applicant is married, the elements of Section 107 of the Act cannot be attracted since there is no reference in the suicide note that the present applicant had misled the deceased by saying that I am unmarried, and there is no evidence that later on, the deceased came to know that he was already married. It is not even the case or the evidence that the applicant hide this fact from the deceased, and when she came to know about it, p. 8 she committed suicide. So, the entire evidence clearly suggests that the present applicant-accused has not committed any act or omission, which led the deceased to commit suicide. The suicide note is clear – there was no incitement, instigation, no threat, no misleading fact or fake promise by the present applicant-accused to the deceased and nothing had happened between them. Even after perusing the impugned FIR, this Court does not find that the essential ingredients of Section 107 of the Act are attracted. 14. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab and another [Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7309 of 2025, decided on 27.10.2025], wherein it has been observed in paras 16 and 17 as follows :- “16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under :- “13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:— “306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term p. 9 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:— “107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, p. 10 (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co- relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:— “25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.” 15. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 p. 11 (corresponding Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is extraordinary power, and it should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the offence, the power should be exercised. Upshot of the above discussion, the present application deserves consideration. 16. In the result, the present application is allowed. The First Information Report No.11193034240308 of 2024 lodged before the Lathi Police Station, District Amreli, for the offence punishable under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside. All consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside. 17. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (VIMAL K. VYAS, J.) /MOINUDDIN