Oral Judgment

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the present applicants-accused, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report being I-CR No.11192062250165 of 2025 registered with the Vithlapur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Section 108, 115(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as the Charge-sheet and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.44 of 2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Keval Brahmbhatt for Mr.Brijesh Ramanuj, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused, and learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the respondent - State.

4. The case of the prosecution, as per the FIR, is that the present applicants-accused used to taunt the deceased for having an illicit relationship and subjected her to persistent mental and physical torture, along with consistent ill-treatment. It is alleged that feeling distressed and disheartened, she took her own life out of despair by hanging herself from a ceiling fan at around 6 O'clock in the early morning on 07.10.2025.

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Keval Brahmbhatt appearing for the applicants-accused has submitted that the impugned FIR lodged by the first informant is palpably false and there is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicants-accused with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the prosecution offered no explanation regarding the crucial events immediately preceding the incident on the fateful day. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicants-accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been proved. It is submitted that except the statement of the complainant, who is the mother of the deceased, there is no other evidence to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicants-accused, 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.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that during the marriage span of 17 years of the deceased with the son of the present applicant no.1, the relationship of the deceased with her in-laws was cordial, harmonious and peaceful, and at no point of time, there was any dispute or discord amongst them. The applicants were treating the deceased with affection and respect. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has, therefore, submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the present applicants-accused are baseless, as the same remained conspicuously silent for over 17 years, which clearly shows that the impugned FIR is an afterthought. It is submitted that the absence of any prior grievance strongly negates the case of the prosecution.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has further submitted that the complainant had registered the impugned FIR seven days after the date of the alleged incident, and no explanation was offered regarding the delay. Learned advocate has further submitted that the deceased was residing in a joint family with her in-laws, and during her marriage span of 17 years, at no point of time, she had ever made any complaint regarding harassment by her in-laws. Furthermore, alleging harassment by the applicants, based on questioning the deceased's character after 17 years of marriage span, clearly indicates that the FIR is an afterthought designed solely to implicate them. Even, there is no suicide note or message or any correspondence attributing harassment, instigation or provocation to the applicants. Furthermore, the husband of the deceased (i.e. the son of applicant no.1) is also not named in the FIR as an accused.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt has, therefore, urged that considering the aforesaid, the application may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case may be quashed and set-aside qua the present applicants- accused.

9. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya 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.

10. From the bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it prima facie appears that the allegations levelled against the present applicants-accused are vague and general. Except the allegation of taunting the deceased for having an illicit relationship, there is no incriminating evidence on record to suggest the proximity between the alleged act of instigation by the applicants-accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage span of the deceased was more than 17 years, and at no point of time, the deceased had ever made any complaint against her in-laws regarding cruelty.

11. It is noteworthy that there is no suicide note by the deceased. Admittedly, there are two statements of the deceased's husband on record dated 07.10.2025 and 18.10.2025, wherein he has specifically stated that since the deceased was frequently remaining engaged with someone on her mobile-phone, he had scolded her regarding the same, due to which, she had left the house and started residing at her parental home. It is pertinent to note that the husband of the deceased has not been arraigned as an accused in the impugned FIR. It is also pertinent to note that the fact regarding the deceased's frequently remaining engaged with someone on her mobile-phone could not have been ascertained through FSL as the mobile-phone of the deceased was not seized by the police. Furthermore, there is no call recording details, no CDR, and no chat suggesting the conduct of the deceased, since the police has not seized the deceased's mobile-phone. Even, there is no statement of the neigbours and there is no evidence on record to show as to what had happened immediately preceding the alleged incident which led the deceased to commit suicide. It prima facie appears from the statement of the deceased's children recorded when they were at their maternal uncle's home after the death of their mother that they have stated the facts quite contrary to the prosecution's case.

12. This Court is conscious of the fact that in such type of serious offences, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. The court has to consider the merits of the case and to form an opinion, whether the ingredients of Section 107 are attracted or not ? In other words, by examining the materials on record, the court would require to form an opinion, whether, there is a prima facie case against the present applicants-accused, which requires a full-fledged trial.

13. It is settled that to attract Section 107 of the IPC, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit 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 close proximity to the act of committing suicide. In the present case, it appears from the materials on record that there is no suicide note by the deceased, and further there is no evidence on record to suggest as to what had happened immediately preceding the incident. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the neighbours. It also appears that there is no reference to any specific incident and the allegations made by the complainant are general in nature. Even, considering the case of the prosecution on a demurrer and at its highest, the Court does not find the essential ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are being attracted.

14. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Shenbagavalli and others vs. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and another, reported in 2025 INSC 607, wherein the Supreme Court held as under :-

          "15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. [M.Arjunan vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315]

          16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 it has been observed in para 16 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 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.

          16.1. For 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.

          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 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 vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144."

15. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is extraordinary, 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 being I-CR No.11192062250165 of 2025 registered with the Vithlapur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Section 108, 115(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as the Charge-sheet and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.44 of 2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandal, are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside qua the present applicants. All consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside.

17. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.