Accused Must Place Deceased In Such Quandary That He Is Left With No Other Option Than To Commit Suicide: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 306 IPC

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), saying that the accused must place the deceased in such quandary that he/she is left with no other option that to commit suicide.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of the FIR for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), and 34 of the IPC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale held, “It is pertinent to note that the act of instigation, in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is required to be of such an intensity, so as to push the deceased to such perplexity under which he has no choice, but, to commit suicide. Such instigation must also be in close proximity to the act and time of suicide. Thus, in order to satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, the accused ought to place the deceased in such a quandary that the deceased is left with no other option than to commit suicide. All of this is absent in the facts of this case.”

The Bench reiterated that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide.

Advocate Rahul Moghe appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while APP S.S. Kaushik and Advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner-accused was a businessman manufacturing electrical control panels in the name of “Elec Mac Corporation” since 20 years. The deceased was running a business of household articles under the name and style, ‘Tejani Stores’ at Bandra for more than 50 years. The Petitioner and his family had good relations with the deceased’s family, till the registration of FIR. The Petitioner had allegedly advanced loans to the deceased and his son and had also executed loan agreements with respect to the same. In October 2015, the Petitioner’s wife advanced Rs. 25 lakhs to the deceased and such a loan was advanced without a written agreement but later was made part of the Agreement in March 2017.

The deceased allegedly committed suicide in July 2017 and at the time of recording of the statement of his son, no suspicion was disclosed by him on anyone to the police. The deceased’s family changed their residence in September 2017 and in December month, the deceased’s wife found a suicide note written by her husband, whilst unpacking at their new residence i.e., after more than 4 months of the incident. On reading the same, she lodged an FIR against the persons mentioned in the suicide note. The FIR was registered against the Petitioner and others. The deceased had made allegations against 9 persons, including the Petitioner and being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “Having perused the charge-sheet in particular, the suicide note and the statement of Ranchod Parmar relied upon by the prosecution, to show the petitioner’s complicity and the law in this regard, we are of the opinion that taking the prosecution case as it stands, no offence as alleged is disclosed qua the petitioner. We do not find that the petitioner who had given loan to the deceased by executing a loan agreement had, in any way the requisite mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”

The Bench noted that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC.

“In the present case, taking the FIR and the contents of the suicide note as well as the statement of Ranchod Parmar, as it stands, it is not possible from any angle to conclude that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by him or that the petitioner used abusive language or intimidated him”, it further said.

The Court added that there is no close proximity between the date of suicide note, which was allegedly written from July 20, 2017 till July 23, 2017.

“Infact, the statement of Ranchod Parmar, does not reveal when the petitioner had come to the shop and demanded money. Nor, does the suicide note reveal any proximity between the petitioner’s act and the deceased committing suicide. The same is completely amiss. Thus, by no strech of imagination, can the act of the petitioner be said to constitute an act of instigation towards the deceased compelling him to commit suicide”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR against the accused.

Cause Title- Nishit Patel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:24054-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Rahul Moghe and Kalyani Rathod.

Respondents: APP S.S. Kaushik and Advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment