R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE

FIR/ORDER) NO. 17974 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================

YUSUBHA @ YASHWANTSINH RAGHUBHA RANA & ORS.

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6

MR. UTPAL R DAVE(6531) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6

DHWANI P LAKHANI(8222) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MILAN R MARUTI(7338) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 07/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.By way of the present petition, the petitioners are before

this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being

CR No. 11198001201657 of 2020, registered on 28.10.2020 with

Nilambaug Police Station, District Bhavnagar, for the offences

punishable under Sections 306, 406, 120B, 323, 504, 506(2), and

114 of the IPC.

2.The case as narrated in the FIR is to the effect that:-

Page 1 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

2.1The Original Informant namely Narendrasinh Bahadursinh

Jadeja, aged about 68, occupation: Retired Deputy

Superintendent of Police and agriculture, residing at Vijayraj

Nagar, Plot No. 629, Bhavnagar-3, and currently residing at

Kalmedhda, Taluka Kalavad (Shitala), District: Jamnagar, Mob:

9978407064 has stated that on 01/10/2020, in an FIR being C.R.

No. I-11198001201479/2020 came to be registered with

Nilambaug Police Station under Section 302 of IPC and A.D. No.

49/2020 under CrPC Section 174, he had recorded his statement.

In that statement, he stated that his son Pradyumansinh @

Pruthvirajsinh, in his own handwriting in a suicide note,

mentioned that he took the step because of his brother-in-law

Yashubha.

2.2It is alleged in the FIR that, firstly, the Informant came to

know about his son Pradyumansinh @ Pruthvirajsinh's

brother-in-law, Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana ,

through his son. The Informant has stated that his son informed

him of what he had learnt from his wife, Binaba. According to the

complainant, his son told him that his brother-in-law, Yashubha @

Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana, originally from Bhadvana and

presently residing at Bhavnagar, and his father-in-law, Vanrajsinh

Natubha Gohil, residing at Jaliya, were maternal cousins. It is

further alleged that Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana

frequently visited his aunt's house at Jaliya, where he developed

an illicit relationship with Minaba, the elder daughter of his

maternal cousin, Vanrajsinh Natubha Gohil. It is alleged that,

within the family relationship, Yashubha and Minaba stood in the

relationship of uncle and niece, but on account of the said illicit

Page 2 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

relationship, Vanrajsinh Natubha Gohil was compelled to

solemnize the marriage of his elder daughter, Minaba, with

Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana. It is further alleged

that, after the marriage, Minaba eloped with another person to

Abu, Rajasthan, and thereafter Pruthvirajsinh, along with his

brother-in-law Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana and his

wife's brother, searched for her at Abu and brought her back from

the Prajapita Brahmakumari Ashram. It is further alleged that

Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana was initially residing

with his parents at Vallabhipur, but due to pressure from Minaba,

her father Vanrajsinh, and their family members and relatives,

Minaba and Yashubha shifted their residence from Vallabhipur to

Bhavnagar. The Informant has further alleged that although

Yashubha's native village is Bhadvana in Surendranagar District,

his parents have been residing at Vallabhipur for several years. It

is further alleged that Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana

has one son, Yagnadipsinh, and one daughter, Rutikaba, who

reside with him at Bhavnagar, while his parents continue to

reside at Vallabhipur. It is lastly alleged that Yashubha @

Yashwantsinh is the only son of his parents.

2.3It is further alleged in the FIR that the Informant has two

children, namely, a son, Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradyumansinh, and a

daughter, Bhagvatiba, whose marriages were solemnized at

Bhavnagar on 15/02/2002 and 17/02/2002 respectively. It is

alleged that Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradyumansinh had two daughters,

namely, Nandiniba and Yashashviba. The Informant has further

alleged that, before the birth of the two daughters, he and his

elder brother had organized a Saptah (prayer) with the hope that

Pruthvirajsinh would be blessed with a son. It is further alleged

Page 3 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

that, as Pruthvirajsinh had only two daughters, the Informant and

his elder brother repeatedly advised him to make efforts to have

a son, but he did not agree. According to the Informant, about

two to three years prior to the FIR, he had also requested

Pruthvirajsinh's close friends, Jasbir Chaudhary and Dilipbhai

Kubavat, who runs a garage, to persuade him in that regard.

However, it is alleged that Pruthvirajsinh told his friends that both

his daughters were equal to sons in every respect and that he did

not wish to have a third child. It is further alleged that he stated

that he would not make any effort merely for the purpose of

having a son and that, if anyone continued to raise the issue of

having a son, he would sever his relationship with such person.

2.4It is further alleged in the FIR that, while opening and

checking the cupboards in the Informant's house situated at

Vijayrajnagar, Plot No. 621, Bhavnagar, he found the key of a

cupboard which had earlier gone missing. It is alleged that the

said cupboard contained the personal belongings of

Pruthvirajsinh and his wife, Binaba. According to the Informant,

inside the cupboard he found a box containing a file consisting of

nine pages, the contents whereof are as follows:

(1) First Page: It is alleged that the first page contains a note

requesting that the file be handed over to the Informant, Shri

Narendrasinh B. Jadeja (Retired Dy.S.P.), mentioning mobile

numbers 9978407064 and 7990365526, and also mentioning the

Informant's wife, Mrs. Taraba N. Jadeja (Mobile No. 9825039954),

stating that both of them were presently residing at their native

village, Kalamedhda.

(2) Second Page: It is alleged that the second page contains

details of the phone numbers of V.K. Enterprise and all the

transactions in the account of Maa Enterprise from the

commencement of the business up to 16/09/2020, showing that

Page 4 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

the accounts between both partners remained unsettled and

further stating that the cheque book and ATM card of Maa

Enterprise were in the possession of Yashubha.

(3) Third Page: It is alleged that the third page contains a list of

receivables of Maa Enterprise, which include ₹2,50,000/- from

Rajbha Mahadev Enterprise; ₹3,00,000/- from Rajbha Om

Construction; ₹2,50,000/- receivable from the Executive

Engineer, Talaja-Palitana; ₹34,34,440/- from V.K. Enterprise;

₹19,34,580/- from Jaydeep, totalling ₹61,67,020/- receivable by

Maa Enterprise. It is further alleged that ₹71,800/- was receivable

in cash from Ghazni Traders, Talaja, the cement supplier.

(4) Fourth Page: It is alleged that the fourth page contains a list

of the assets purchased in partnership for Maa Enterprise,

namely, a Bolero vehicle, an Eicher truck, a vibrator, a laptop and

a thermo-plant machine. The values of the said articles are stated

therein. However, it is alleged that the value of the welding

machine and cutter machine has not been mentioned. The total

value of the assets is shown as ₹8,05,000/-, with a note that

Pruthvirajsinh and Yashubha each had a 50% share therein.

(5) Fifth Page: It is alleged that the fifth page contains a list of the

amounts receivable by Yashubha from Maa Enterprise, showing a

cash amount of ₹3,00,000/- and personal withdrawals of

Yashubha amounting to ₹8,07,871/-.

(6) Sixth Page: It is alleged that the sixth page contains a list of

the amounts receivable by Pruthviraj from Maa Enterprise,

showing investment of ₹5,00,000/-, expenditure of ₹5,55,687/-

(the details whereof are stated to be mentioned on the reverse

side), and gold loan instalments recoverable from Maa Enterprise

as personal funds amounting to ₹3,36,912/-, making a total

recoverable amount of ₹13,92,599/-. It is further alleged that the

page below contains details of cash transactions and also records

that Pruthviraj had made personal withdrawals from Maa

Enterprise amounting to ₹8,19,000/-, along with other particulars.

(7) Seventh Page: It is alleged that the seventh page records the

following transactions: ₹2,10,000/- deposited by cheque into Maa

Enterprise; ₹40,000/- transferred through ATM on 19/01/2018;

₹58,387/- dated 19/01/2018 towards Palitana Vavdi expenses;

₹1,20,000/- towards Manali expenses; and ₹1,27,300/- towards

interest on two gold loans. The total expenditure is shown as

₹5,55,687/-. It is further alleged that the page also contains

Page 5 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

details regarding the gold loans obtained and subsequently

repaid.

(8) Eighth Page: It is alleged that the eighth page contains the

following note:

"Respected Father, I am leaving these accounts so that you

may know how much amount is actually receivable by me.

Yashubha has cheated me and has dissolved our partnership.

He has now entered into a partnership with Digvijaysinh

(Bhaylubha) of Trapaj. Rajbha, the brother of Bhaylubha, is

also a partner therein. Henceforth, Yashubha and Rajbha will

carry on the business in partnership and Bhaylubha will make

the investment.

Kindly get our partnership firm 'Maa Enterprise' dissolved,

since it is registered at our residential address. Until all

accounts are finally settled, kindly get the bank account of

Maa Enterprise frozen; otherwise, as Yashubha is in

possession of the cheque book, ATM card and internet

banking facility, he may carry out transactions at any time.

Please forgive me. I could not do anything for you. All our

relatives have betrayed us and today Yashubha has also

joined them.

— Your unworthy son, Pruthviraj."

(9) Ninth Page: It is alleged that the ninth page contains a note

stating that all documents, the key of the bank locker, the licence

of the revolver and other articles were kept in the lower cupboard

adjacent to the television in his room.The aforesaid file

comprising pages 1 to 9 was entirely written by my son

Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh in his own handwriting. The

Informant had well acquainted with his handwriting. The

Informant had earlier produced before you his diary containing

his handwriting for comparison with the handwriting appearing in

the suicide note.

2.5It is further alleged in the FIR that, upon comparing the

aforesaid nine-page handwritten file of Pruthvirajsinh @

Pradhyumansinh with the handwritten documents consisting of

pages 1 to 4 submitted by Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha

Page 6 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

Rana, the following facts are revealed:

2.5.1 It is alleged that, in his written statement, Yashubha

has shown that his withdrawals from 01/04/2019 till date

amounted only to ₹2,20,000/-. However, in the accounts

prepared by Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh, the personal

withdrawals of Yashubha are shown as ₹8,07,871/-. It is alleged

that, thus, Yashubha has understated his withdrawals by

₹5,87,871/-, thereby committing criminal breach of trust and

cheating.

2.5.2 It is further alleged that, according to the accounts of

Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh, the amount recoverable by

him from Maa Enterprise was calculated as follows: Cash

investment – ₹5,00,000/-; Expenditure – ₹5,55,687/-; other

expenditure as per accounts; Gold loan instalments – ₹3,36,912/-.

Thus, it is alleged that the total amount recoverable by Pruthviraj

came to ₹13,92,599/-. After deducting his own withdrawals of

₹8,19,000/-, it is alleged that an amount of ₹5,73,599/- still

remained payable to Pruthviraj by Maa Enterprise. However, it is

further alleged that Yashubha @ Yashubha Rana, after showing

withdrawals of ₹8,92,414/- and further deducting ₹3,40,474/-

towards the gold loan installments allegedly paid by

Pruthvirajsinh, has shown only ₹5,52,240/- as being receivable by

Pruthvirajsinh. It is alleged that, thus, whereas Pruthvirajsinh was

actually entitled to recover ₹5,73,599/- from Maa Enterprise,

Yashubha @ Yashvantsinh Rana failed to account for the sum of

₹5,52,599/-, thereby cheating Pruthvirajsinh and committing

criminal breach of trust. It is further alleged that, upon comparing

the respective accounts of Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh and

Page 7 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

Yashubha @ Yashvantsinh Radhubha Rana, it clearly appears that

Yashubha @ Yashvantsinh Radhubha Rana cheated Pruthvirajsinh

and committed criminal breach of trust, thereby dishonestly

causing a wrongful loss of ₹11,40,470/-.

2.6It is further alleged that, apart from the aforesaid

discrepancies, Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana himself

prepared and produced a statement showing the liabilities of Maa

Enterprise. It is alleged that, in the said statement, he showed

that a sum of ₹2,00,000/- in cash and ₹2,06,000/- was payable to

Arvindbhai Rana. However, it is further alleged that, when

inquiries were made with Shri Viralsinh R. Vala, Accountant, who

had been filing the Income Tax Returns of Maa Enterprise and

whose office is situated at Plant-205, Atabhai Road, Bhavnagar

(Mobile No. 9067157557), it was revealed that no such liability

was reflected either in the books of accounts or in the account

statements of Maa Enterprise. It is therefore alleged that

Yashubha falsely showed a liability of ₹2,06,000/-, thereby

committing criminal breach of trust and cheating.

2.7It is further alleged that the father of Yashubha, namely

Radhubha Rana, had advanced the following amounts to Maa

Enterprise by cheque: ₹10,00,000/- on 18/01/2018; ₹1,00,000/-

on 20/03/2018; and ₹1,00,000/- on 04/11/2018, totalling

₹12,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the said Accountant Shri

Viralsinh Vala, who had filed the Income Tax Returns, informed

that there was no mention whatsoever of any interest liability.

However, it is alleged that Yashubha subsequently showed an

amount of ₹1,62,000/- as interest calculated at the rate of 1.5%

from 10/19 onwards. It is alleged that this amount was falsely

Page 8 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

shown by him and, by inflating the liability by ₹1,62,000/-,

Yashubha cheated Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh and

committed criminal breach of trust.

2.8It is further alleged that it is shown in the accounts that Maa

Enterprise was liable to pay ₹28,72,012/- to Bhaylubha of Trapaj.

However, it is alleged that when the Accountant Shri Viralsinh

Vala, who had filed the Income Tax Returns of Maa Enterprise,

was personally contacted and inquired as to who Bhaylubha of

Trapaj was, he expressed his ignorance. It is further alleged that

thereafter Shri Viralsinh Vala telephoned Yashubha and sought

clarification regarding Bhaylubha of Trapaj. It is alleged that

Yashubha disclosed the relevant names, after which Shri Viralsinh

Vala verified the ledger accounts and found that the investments

in Maa Enterprise were as follows: Chetansinh Aniruddhsinh Gohil

– ₹8,85,000/-; and Rajendrasinh Aniruddhsinh Gohil of Trapaj –

₹9,65,000/-, totalling ₹18,50,000/-. It is therefore alleged that

Yashubha falsely inflated the liability by ₹10,22,012/-, thereby

cheating Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh Narendrasinh Jadeja

and committing criminal breach of trust.

2.9It is further alleged in the FIR that Yashubha alias

Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana used to live in Vallabhipur with his

parents, but due to pressure from Minaba, her father Vanrajsinh,

and their family members and relatives, Minaba and Yashubha

shifted from Vallabhipur to Bhavnagar. It is alleged that the

Informant’s son had two children, namely Nandiniba and

Yashashviba, and that various disputes and family pressures

arose in this context.

Page 9 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

2.10It is further alleged that, when Maa Enterprise had newly

commenced its business, it required financial investment. At the

request of the Informant’s son Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradyumansinh,

the Informant advanced to Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha

Rana a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in the year 2017 and ₹12,00,000/- in

the year 2018, thereby totalling ₹20,00,000/-. It is alleged that

the said amount was paid from the Informant’s agricultural

income and personal savings. However, it is alleged that

Yashubha has not reflected or acknowledged the said amount in

any account, with the intention to misappropriate the same,

thereby cheating both the Informant and Pruthvirajsinh @

Pradhyumansinh and committing criminal breach of trust.

2.11It is further alleged that, thus, ₹2,06,000/- shown in the

name of Arvindbhai, ₹1,62,000/- shown as interest payable to

Radhubha Rana, ₹10,22,012/- shown as payable to Bhaylubha of

Trapaj i.e. Chetansinh Aniruddhsinh Gohil and Rajendrasinh

Aniruddhsinh Gohil, the Informant’s investment of ₹20,00,000/-,

and the amount of ₹11,40,470/- found payable to Pruthvirajsinh

as per his handwritten accounts, together aggregate to

₹45,30,482/-. It is alleged that by dishonestly misappropriating

the aforesaid amount of ₹45,30,482/-, Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh

Radhubha Rana cheated the Informant’s son Pruthvirajsinh @

Pradhyumansinh, committed criminal breach of trust, and

thereby drove him to commit suicide.

2.12It is further alleged that thereafter, on 13/07/2020, the

Informant and his wife came from Kalamedhda to Bhavnagar

since the Informant’s Fixed Deposit was maturing on 15/07/2020

and two ICICI insurance premiums of ₹50,000/- each were to be

Page 10 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

paid. It is alleged that they stayed at Vijayrajnagar, Bhavnagar,

for about five to six days. During this period, it is alleged that the

Informant’s son Pruthvirajsinh @ Pradhyumansinh, in complete

privacy and confidence, informed him that Yashubha @

Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana and his wife Minaba had been

continuously harassing him and his wife Binaba for the preceding

three months, exerting pressure for engagement of their

daughter Yashasviba with their son Yagnadipsinh and also

demanding execution of a will bequeathing half of the property in

their favour. It is further alleged that similar pressure and threats

were also exerted by Radhubha Rana and his wife when the

Informant’s son visited Vallabhipur, and also when Yashubha and

his family visited Bhavnagar.

2.13It is further alleged that the Informant’s son was threatened

that if such engagement and will were not executed, they would

not be allowed to live peacefully, and that they would be socially

isolated. It is further alleged that Yashubha, Minaba, and their

children also harassed the Informant’s granddaughters Nandiniba

and Yashashviba by abusing, assaulting, and threatening them. It

is further alleged that Binaba also conveyed similar facts to the

Informant’s wife Taraba at Kalmedhda.

2.14It is further alleged that the delay in lodging the FIR

occurred because the ATM card, cheque book, and account

records of Maa Enterprise were in the possession of Yashubha,

and that it was necessary to first initiate steps to freeze the bank

account and obtain account information. It is further alleged that

further procedural work regarding GST records and account

changes was pending, and therefore immediate FIR was not

Page 11 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

lodged, reserving the right to file the same later.

2.15It is further alleged that thereafter, a coconut, lemon, and

black threads were found from the cupboard of Pruthvirajsinh,

which the Informant believes were used in black magic or

vashikaran by Yashubha and Minaba, thereby influencing the

deceased to commit suicide.

2.16It is further alleged that the Informant, being a retired

police officer (PSI retired as Dy.S.P.), cannot comprehend the

extent of torture inflicted upon his son, due to which he

committed suicide. It is further alleged that the accused persons,

in collusion, subjected the deceased and his wife to mental and

physical harassment and thereby abetted the commission of

suicide.

2.17It is further alleged that all the accused persons, namely

Yashubha @ Yashwantsinh Radhubha Rana, Minaba, Rutikaba,

Yagnadipsinh, Radhubha Rana, and his wife, acted in furtherance

of common intention and criminal conspiracy, and therefore the

Informant prays for action against them under Sections 306, 406,

120(B), 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC.

3.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Harshil Tolia, with Mr. Utpal R.

Dave, Jayesh Dave, and Miss Harshvi Tolia, would submit that the

FIR was lodged after a delay of 42 days by the complainant,

respondent No. 2 herein, on the basis of the incident of suicide

committed by his son. However, he has not given any cogent

reasons for such delayed registration of the FIR, more particularly

when the complainant himself is a retired Deputy Superintendent

Page 12 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

of Police.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that petitioner

Nos. 3 and 4 are minors; however, they are dragged into the

criminal litigation to pressurize the petitioners' family.

3.2Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the FIR is

completely silent as to how the acts of the accused persons

would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide or

having created a situation where the deceased had no other

option but to commit suicide. In the absence of such acts

attributed directly to the petitioners, the present FIR is required

to be quashed.

3.3Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the

deceased himself had filed all the income tax returns of the

partnership concern "Maa Enterprise" under his digital signature

since the year 2017-18, for which the deceased had never raised

any objections against such financial statements, and the income

tax returns were also processed by the department. The learned

Senior Counsel has thus argued that the entire case of the

prosecution is false and fabricated on the face of it.

3.4Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that petitioner

Nos. 5 and 6 are residing separately at Vallabhipur, a taluka place

in Bhavnagar, away from Bhavnagar City. They are falsely

dragged into the crime in question only because they are the

parents of petitioner No. 1. Learned advocate would further

submit that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken on their

face value, they would, at the best, point to some financial

Page 13 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

dispute of a civil nature between the partners and family

skirmishes.

3.5Further, it is argued that the deceased and the petitioners

were residing separately. Therefore, no crime as alleged has

been committed by them. Further, the lodging of the FIR, on the

face of it, appears to be an abuse and misuse of the process of

law. Learned advocate would further submit that no ingredients

of Section 406 of the IPC are satisfied, inasmuch as there is no

entrustment or ingredient of any fraudulent action or even any

intention emerging from the entire allegations made in the FIR.

Therefore, the FIR, having been lodged out of vengeance and

with ill motive, more particularly when respondent No. 2, the

complainant, is a retired high-ranking police officer, reflects that

he has used his influence to ensure that the petitioners are

harassed in all possible ways.

3.6Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, even

assuming for the moment that there was some partnership

dispute with regard to some financial transaction, such

allegations are not substantiated from a reading of the FIR or the

suicide note, more particularly when the deceased had neither

initiated any civil proceedings nor given any notice. However,

because of some misconception or presumption at which the

deceased had arrived, he took the drastic step. Further, even if

the suicide note containing the accounts of the partnership is

presumed to have been written by the deceased, there is nothing

to indicate that there was any dispute with regard to the

accounts.

Page 14 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

3.7Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the entire

FIR is based on hearsay evidence, and the words allegedly

spoken by the deceased before his death are narrated in the FIR

lodged immediately after the incident by the brother-in-law of the

deceased on 16.09.2020, wherein it is stated that the deceased

had killed his entire family and his pet. However, in the said FIR,

none of the names of the present accused have been stated or

narrated by the deceased.

3.8Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there is

no proximity between the suicide committed by the deceased

and the alleged act connecting the present petitioners, inasmuch

as what emerges from the accounts alleged to have been written

by the deceased is only that he was required to receive some

money from the partnership and nothing beyond that. Under the

circumstances, it is argued that this can never be termed as

abetment to commit suicide against another partner.

3.9Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the

deceased had never informed the complainant about any dispute

or any other dispute prior to the incident, and it is for the first

time that the father of the complainant has made allegations by

interpreting the accounts jotted down by the deceased, which are

termed as the suicide note. By no stretch of imagination would

the same attract the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide.

3.10Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners lastly would

submit that one of the allegations in the FIR with regard to

petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are the minor daughter and son of

petitioner No. 1, is that they were abusing the daughters of the

Page 15 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

deceased, who are their cousin sisters. It is further alleged that

petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were pressurizing the deceased to get his

daughter married to petitioner No. 4, a minor boy aged 12 years.

It is also alleged that they were pressurizing the deceased to

execute a will parting half of his share in favour of petitioner No.

4 and the daughter of the deceased. It is further alleged that,

whenever they visited the place of the deceased, they used to

pressurize him, as narrated by the deceased to the complainant.

3.11Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that it is

alleged that the petitioners had indulged in some occult

processes which led the deceased to commit suicide before

terminating his entire family with a gun. However, except for the

bare allegations in the FIR with regard to the performance of

occult processes, there is no other evidence supporting such

allegations. The allegations are completely unconnected with the

incident and are based only on hearsay statements, with a view

to ensure that the petitioners are brought to their knees based on

the said allegations. Thus, it is argued that the present petition

be allowed.

4.Per contra, learned APP for the respondent State and

learned advocate Mr. P. M. Lakhani for the original complainant

would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased had

committed suicide after killing his family and that, thereafter, the

complainant found the suicide note. More particularly, when

prima facie allegations from the FIR and the suicide note surface

on record, pursuant to which a chargesheet has also been filed, it

is argued that it cannot be said that no case is made out.

Page 16 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

4.1It is further added that, since the chargesheet has been

filed, the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of

preferring a discharge application, since the scope of exercising

powers under Section 482 of the CrPC is very narrow. Having

made a prima facie case, the present petition deserves to be

dismissed.

4.2It is further submitted that the contention raised by the

learned advocate for the petitioners requires a full-fledged trial

and can be tested only on the basis of the evidence led before

the trial Court. Once there are statements of witnesses alleging

that offences have been committed under Sections 506(2), 504,

and 323, and also with regard to how the petitioners were

pressurizing the deceased for the marriage and for executing a

will in favour of petitioner No. 4 and the daughter of the

deceased, the question as to whether those offences are

attracted or not cannot be decided by conducting a mini trial.

Thus, it is argued that the present petition be rejected.

4.3Learned advocate for the complainant has not pressed any

other grounds except those stated hereinabove.

5.Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties. At the

outset, the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC are

required to be considered.

"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 which may extend to

ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

107. Abetment of a thing-A person abets the

Page 17 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

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 facilitates the

commission thereof, is said to aid the doing

of that act."

Thus, from a reading of the aforesaid sections, to sustain a

charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be

proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide of

the deceased by some direct or indirect act. Further, to prove

such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions

outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. To attract

the offence of abetment to suicide, there has to be some direct or

indirect act of instigation or incitement to suicide by the accused,

which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by

the deceased. Not only that, such instigation or incitement should

Page 18 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

also reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. It

should thereby put the victim in such a position that he would

have no other option but to commit suicide. What has to be seen

from the facts of the case is whether an individual in similar

circumstances in a given society could commit suicide. Thus,

there is no straitjacket formula in dealing with cases of abetment,

and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and

circumstances.

5.1Since each person reacts differently to the same

provocation, depending on a variety of factors, the element of

mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; instead, it must

be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the

foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the

IPC, that is, the deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke

or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled and

consequently unsatisfied.

5.2Thus, from the series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and this High Court, what is therefore evident is that the

positive act of instigation becomes a crucial element of

abetment. In order to satisfy the requirement of instigation,

though it is not necessary that the actual words must be used to

that effect, or that what constitutes instigation must necessarily

and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being

spelt out. Thus, even if some act, direct or indirect, has been

committed by the accused without intending the consequences

to actually follow, it cannot be said to amount to instigation.

Page 19 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

5.3On the aforementioned settled principles of law, if the facts

of the case are tested, what is being alleged against the present

petitioners is with regard to the unpaid amount of the partnership

between the deceased and petitioner No. 1. From reading of the

entire FIR, the inference has been drawn by the complainant, who

is the father of the deceased (retired DYSP), who has lodged the

FIR after a delay of 42 days, without stating any reasons for such

delay. Also, on reading of the suicide note, which has been

reproduced in the FIR itself, what has been alleged by the

deceased is that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 abused the daughter of

the deceased (who is the cousin sister of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4),

and that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were pressurizing the deceased

to get his daughter married to petitioner No. 4, a minor boy aged

12 years, and further pressurizing the deceased to execute a will

so as to part with half of his share in favour of petitioner No. 4

and the daughter of the deceased. This in any way cannot be

termed as instigation or incitement or a demand having any

proximate nexus with the commission of suicide. The factum of

general allegations without any specific instances, date, time, or

place, and the lodging of an FIR at a belated stage for reasons

best known to the informant, shows that there is no link or

proximity between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the act

of suicide so as to form a chain of causation connecting the

alleged instigation to the suicide. There are no specific averments

as to when such demands of marriage, execution of will, or

pressure regarding accounts were made, including by petitioner

No. 1. Vague and omnibus allegations are made without specific

particulars of date, time, and place, that too after 42 days of the

suicide. Further, the claim that the deceased was entitled to

certain amounts from the partnership can be examined only if

Page 20 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

there is supporting evidence of such legitimate dues. Merely

jotting down something on a piece of paper by the deceased and

alleging that petitioner No. 1 has joined in betraying other

relatives, without any specific instance of betrayal, would fall

short of constituting abetment or instigation so as to compel the

deceased to have no other option but to commit suicide.

5.3.1Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v.

State of Haryana reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573: 2024 INSC

149, observed as follows:-

"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano

Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560], after referring

to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of

culpability under Section 306 IPC observed as under:

(SCC para 45)

"45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of

alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct

or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of

suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without

there being any positive action proximate to the time of

occurrence on the part of the accused which led or

compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in

terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

5.3.2In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,

(2001) 9 SCC 618 it observed as follows:

“16.In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof

of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of

suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a

suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of

suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex

attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case

of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking

Page 21 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the

commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of

harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice

unless there be such action on the part of the accused which

compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending

action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a

person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not,

could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each

case.

16.1For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted

commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the

accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As

explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above

referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite

or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide

had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise

not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person

to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of

abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his

acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation

which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to

commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section

306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-

esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the

victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of

abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the

accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the

actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are

only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than

harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short

of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept

on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the

deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of

abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of

human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own

facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having

bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.

Page 22 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

16.2We may also observe that human mind could be affected and

could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the

mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are

dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular

person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there

is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same.

Even in regard to the factors related with the question of

harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age,

personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc.

Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on

a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including

those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each

case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and

circumstances.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“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 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.”

5.3.3The Supreme Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda

v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 : 2024 INSC

960 observed as follows:

“18.For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-

established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the

Page 23 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself,

is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The

prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the

accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element

of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be

evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational

requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not

satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and

conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.”

5.3.4In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, the gravamen of

the offence lies in the establishing of clear and unequivocal proof

of direct or indirect acts of incitement or instigation to the

commission of the act. A mere bald allegation of harassment of

the deceased by another person does not satisfy the legal

thresholds required for a conviction. To attract the mischief of

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be positive

action on the part of the accused of such a compelling nature

that it leaves the deceased with no alternative but to resort to

suicide. Furthermore, such offending action must be proximate in

time to the occurrence of the suicide to establish a continuous

and unbroken link. Whether a person has abetted the commission

of suicide is a question of fact that can only be gathered from a

meticulous evaluation of the unique facts and circumstances of

each individual case.

5.3.5For the purpose of determining abetment, the primary

judicial consideration is whether the accused is guilty of the

explicit act of instigating the suicide. As consistently settled and

reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, "instigation" means to

goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an

act. A delicate analysis of human behavior is required, as the

Page 24 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

human mind reacts in myriad ways, and the impact of one's

actions carries several imponderables. If the deceased was

hyper-sensitive, and the alleged action of the accused was

otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly

circumstanced, ordinary person to commit suicide, it would be

judicially unsafe to hold the accused guilty. Conversely, if the

accused, through a continuous and systematic course of conduct,

deliberately engineers a situation where the deceased perceives

no other viable option but to end his life, the case squarely falls

within the four corners of Section 306 IPC.

5.3.6The essential element of mens rea (guilty mind) on the part

of the accused in these cases must be examined with strict

reference to their actual acts and deeds. If the nature of the acts

and deeds reveals that the accused intended nothing more than

mere harassment or a transient, snap-show of anger, the case

falls short of the statutory thresholds required for abetment of

suicide. However, if the accused persistently irritates, annoys, or

persecutes the deceased through continuous words or deeds until

the deceased is actively provoked into reacting, the offense of

abetment may be made out. Because suicide involves

multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior, courts

must demand cogent, convincing, and unimpeachable proof of

active incitement.

5.3.7To legally link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the

two occurrences must stand in close temporal proximity to each

other, forming a seamless nexus or a chain of causation where

the suicide is the direct, predictable result of the instigation. The

act of instigation must possess such severe intensity and

Page 25 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

immediate proximity that it objectively pushes the deceased into

an inescapable position.

5.4From reading of the entire FIR and the papers, there is no

direct or indirect act of incitement or instigation to commit

suicide by the deceased nor the act of pressurizing the deceased

to get married his daughter with this son of the petitioner No. 1

are mere bald allegations of harassment since it falls shorts of

the legal threshold required for attracting section 306 of the IPC.

Such pressurizing does not amount to compelling the deceased

leaving behind him no other alternative to but to resort to

suicide. More particularly, the proximity in time of the occurrence

of the suicide does not reflect a continuous and unbroken link of

such pressure and hence also, the question of abetment for the

commission of suicide is out of question. No ordinary person is

expected to commit suicide in similarly situated circumstances

without there being a continuous and systematic conduct falling

short of deliberately creating a situation where the deceased

perceives no other option but to commit suicide is also not

coming on record. The foundational facts are falling short so as to

attract section 107 and 306 of the IPC on the facts of the reading

of the FIR and papers. There is no cogent, convincing and un-

impeachable proof of active incitement of the petitioner and

therefore, continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of process

of law.

5.5One of the allegations is also to the effect that the

petitioners had indulged in some occult process which led the

deceased to commit suicide before killing his family members

and his pet. No doubt, the entire family has lost their lives in an

Page 26 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

unfortunate incident; however, in the absence of any sufficient

material to show that the petitioners had intended to push the

deceased into such a position that he was left with no other

option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal

proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the

process of law.

5.6This Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, more particularly considering that in the FIR lodged by the

brother-in-law of the deceased, Sukhdev Singh, being FIR No.

11198001201479 of 2020, registered at Nilambaug Police Station

for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, read with

Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act and Sections 8 and 9 of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, there is not an iota of

evidence or allegation against the present petitioners. However,

as an afterthought, for the reasons best known to the father of

the deceased, the present informant has lodged the FIR after a

delay of 42 days, based on an alleged suicide note which does

not implicate the present petitioners or establish any nexus or

proximity between the alleged acts and the suicide committed.

The complainant having failed to prima facie establish that the

petitioners had any intention to abet the deceased to commit

suicide.

5.7As far as the allegations under Section 323 of the IPC are

concerned, the same are vague and do not attract the offence, as

no specific allegations have been disclosed.

5.8As far as Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, a part of it

relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal

Page 27 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused

had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. No such

factual aspects are emerging from the record. As far as Section

504 is concerned, it contemplates intentionally insulting a person

and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace,

or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that such

person may be provoked to commit a breach of public peace or

any other offence. However, from the reading of the FIR, it does

not transpire that in the ordinary course of events, the deceased

was insulted so as to provoke him to breach the peace or commit

an offence under law. The abusive language, if at all used, would

amount to intentional insult only if it is likely to provoke the

person insulted to commit a breach of peace. Mere abusive,

discourteous language, rudeness, or insolence does not amount

to intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the IPC,

and therefore the necessary ingredients of Section 504 are not

made out.

5.9As regards the contention raised by the learned advocate

for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been filed and the

petitioners can apply for discharge, it would be apt to refer to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaileshbhai

Ranchhodbhai Patel and Another v. State of Gujarat and

Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 5569, wherein it has

been held that: “The High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC

retains the power to quash an FIR even after a charge-sheet

under Section 173(2) is filed, provided it is satisfied that either

the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even if accepted as

true and correct, do not disclose the commission of any offence,

or that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of

Page 28 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

the process of law and of the Court, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of each case.” Hence, the argument that this

Court should not exercise its inherent powers once the charge-

sheet is filed does not hold good.

5.10In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors.,

AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the

proposition of law, which reads as under:-

“(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 ins the F.I.R. and other

materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose

a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police

officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order

of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the

code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the

F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support

of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out the case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

S.155(2) of the Code.

(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

Page 29 of 30

R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any

of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the

institution and/or where there is a specific provision in

the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious

redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with malafide 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."

From the entire reading of the papers of the charge-sheet

as well as the FIR, the present case would squarely fall within

parameters (1), (3), (5), and (7) laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal

and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 .

6. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.

The impugned FIR being CR No. 11198001201657 of 2020,

registered on 28.10.2020 with Nilambaug Police Station, District

Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 406,

120B, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC, along with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present

petitioners, stands quashed and set aside.

7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(P. M. RAVAL, J)

MMP

Page 30 of 30