Oral Judgment

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate Mr.Mangal V.Gadhvi 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 present applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11198047251252 of 2025 lodged before the Sihor Police Station, District Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased (i.e. the father of the complainant) had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000=00 from the present applicant in the year 2020, and he was regularly paying interest on it to the present applicant. It is alleged that though the deceased had repaid the principal amount, the applicant was further demanding Rs.30,000=00 from the deceased, due to which the deceased was remaining under constant stress and tension. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was frequently calling the deceased and demanding the money. It is alleged that due to the torture exerted upon the deceased by the applicant regarding repayment of his dues, the deceased took the drastic step of committing suicide by hanging himself in his house.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Nirupam D.Nanavaty assisted by Mr.Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-accused, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent no. 1 - State and learned advocate Mr.Mangal V.Gadhvi appearing for the respondent no.2 - Complainant.

5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nirupam D.Nanavaty 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-accused 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- accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been proved. He has further submitted that except the statement of the complainant (who is the son of the deceased), there is no other evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant has made vague, omnibus and general allegations against the applicant- 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 senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty, while taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, has submitted that on bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it clearly appears that the only allegation levelled against the present applicant is that he had demanded repayment of the loan amount and the interest thereon. It is submitted that there are no allegations against the present applicant that he had administered any threat to the deceased or had used abusive language or incited or provoked the deceased soon before committing suicide by the deceased. It is submitted that repeated demands of money cannot be considered as instigation to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Furthermore, it is submitted that the material on record contains no allegation of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation by the applicant to induce the deceased to commit suicide. Mr.Nanavaty has also submitted that the allegation of mental stress or financial pressure, without any direct and proximate act by the applicant, are not sufficient to constitute the alleged offence.

7. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or the offence punishable under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011. He has further submitted that the key elements of mens rea and instigation as required under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are missing. Admittedly, there is no suicide note by the deceased or phone call details or any other evidence produced by the prosecution, which prima facie establish the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Furthermore, the bare perusal of the impugned FIR would suggest that there was no direct or indirect nexus between the alleged act of the applicant and suicide by the deceased. He has, therefore, submitted that, considering the entire FIR stricto sensu at face value, no offence is made out.

8. In support of his argument, learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 810, and of this Court rendered in the case of Prakash Chandulal Patel vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Misc. Application No.6506 of 2022 decided on 19.11.2025).

9. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty has, therefore, urged that considering the aforesaid, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.

10. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta 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 consent quashing would not be permissible. He has further submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the complicity of the present applicant in the alleged offence. While taking this Court through the factual matrix of the case, learned APP Mr.Maheta has submitted that even in the past also, similar type of offence was registered against the present applicant, and in that case also, due to the torture exerted by the applicant for recovery of the amount, the person had committed suicide. Mr.Maheta has submitted that even in the case on hand, two witnesses have specifically stated that prior to the occurrence of the incident, the deceased was staying disturbed and in a tense state of mind. He has, therefore, submitted that considering the aforesaid, no doubt, there appears complicity of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Hence, he has prayed that the present application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.

11. Learned advocate Mr.Mangal V.Gadhvi appearing for the respondent no.2 - original complainant, namely, Riyazbhai Bahadurbhai Makrani (who is the son of the deceased), has submitted that the dispute between him and the present applicant has been settled and there is no grievance amongst them. He has further submitted that due to some misunderstanding between the deceased and the applicant, the unfortunate incident had occurred. Learned advocate Mr.Gadhvi has also submitted that the complainant has tendered an affidavit dated 09.01.2026 in this regard, wherein, he has unequivocally stated that since the matter has been settled, he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant-accused. The complainant has further stated that he does not want to proceed further with the matter and has no objection if the application is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed and set-aside.

12. The complainant - Riyazbhai Bahadurbhai Makrani, who is personally present in the Court, has admitted the contents of the affidavit filed by him. He has further stated that since the dispute has been amicably settled with the present applicant, he does not want to proceed further with the matter and he has no objection if the application is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed and set-aside.

13. This Court is conscious of the fact that in such type of serious offences, the FIR cannot be quashed only on the basis of the consent and 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 applicant-accused, which requires a full-fledged trial.

14. 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 soon before the incident. Even after perusing the impugned FIR, this Court does not find that the essential ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.

15. 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."

16. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions canvassed by learned APP appearing for the respondent - State as well as considered the materials on record. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2019, the deceased (i.e. the father of the complainant) had borrowed Rs.20,000=00 from the present applicant, towards which, he was regularly paying Rs.2,000=00 a month as interest to the present applicant. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that even though his father had repaid the loan amount with interest to the applicant, yet the applicant was demanding additional Rs.30,000=00 from him. Therefore, due to the mental torture exerted upon him by the applicant, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in the house on 07.12.2025. Admittedly, there is no suicide note on record. The only evidence on record is the verbal statement of the complainant, who has stated that his father had borrowed Rs.20,000=00 from the present applicant and was regularly paying Rs.2,000=00 per month as interest on it. It is further stated by the complainant that on 24.11.2025, his mother - Hamidaben had called him up and informed that his father, i.e. the deceased, has been staying disturbed and is in a tense state of mind as the present applicant is demanding additional Rs.30,000=00 though he has been paid all his dues with interest. It appears from the record that, except the verbal statement of the complainant, there is no other documentary evidence to prove that the deceased had borrowed any amount from the applicant or that he was regularly paying Rs.2,000=00 as interest to the applicant. The only evidence available on record is that the deceased had paid Rs.20,000=00 to the present applicant through GPay. However, there is no clear and explicit evidence indicating the purpose of the said transaction. Furthermore, there are no call records or CDRs to suggest that the present applicant was threatening or torturing the deceased, which led the deceased to such a position under which he had no choice but to commit suicide. There are statements of two witnesses acquainted with the deceased, which suggest that the deceased was staying disturbed and was under a tense state of mind, however, there is no direct or indirect evidence of torture exerted upon the deceased by the present applicant.

17. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, for the sake of argument, even if the court believes that the applicant was demanding the money, that itself cannot attract the elements of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code since there is no call details or CDRs or even a statement of any eye-witness to suggest that the present applicant was threatening or torturing or had threatened or tortured the applicant soon before the incident for recovery of the borrowed amount, which led the deceased to take an extreme step of committing suicide. It is noteworthy that there is no suicide note, no eye-witness or no CDR, which suggests the nexus between the act or omission on the part of the present applicant and committing suicide by the deceased.

18. In Mahendra Awase (supra), the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 20 as under :-

          "20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar."

19. The Supreme Court further observed in paragraphs 22 to 25 as under :-

          "22. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.

          23. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.

          24. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to- day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.

          25. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside."

20. If we consider the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court, in absence of any other evidence, it clearly appears that the demand made by the applicant for repayment of his dues was not with an intent to push the deceased to such a position under which he had no choice except to commit suicide.

21. Undoubtedly, there are criminal antecedents against the present applicant, and a similar type of case has also been registered against him; however, as pointed out by learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavaty, the competent court of law, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the applicant. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any connecting material on record that attracts the elements of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, the same cannot form the sole basis for refusing to exercise the powers conferred upon this Court.

22. 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.

23. In the result, the present application is allowed. The First Information Report No.11198047251252 of 2025 lodged before the Sihor Police Station, District Bhavnagar, for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set- aside. All consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside.

24. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.