Holding

The Court held that the FIR, even if taken at face value, does not disclose any offence and its continuation would be an abuse of process, thereby quashing the FIR.

Summary

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 11198001201657, alleging that the deceased’s suicide was caused by harassment, financial disputes, and alleged occult practices by the respondents. The FIR listed offences under Sections 306, 406, 120B, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. The Court examined whether the allegations satisfied the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, focusing on the need for a proximate link and clear mens rea. It found the FIR to be vague, lacking specific dates, times, or concrete acts of instigation, and noted the 42‑day delay in filing. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mere harassment or financial disputes do not constitute abetment and that proceeding would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

Issues considered

The FIR discloses any cognizable offence under Sections 306, 406, 120B, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC.
Whether the respondents’ alleged conduct amounts to abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC despite a charge‑sheet being filed.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats its validity.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 25(1)(B)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107, s. 155(2), s. 156(1), s. 173(2), s. 174, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120B, s. 306, s. 323, s. 406, s. 504, s. 506(2)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts. 8, s. 9

Subjects

Abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 482 CrPCFIR quashingCriminal breach of trustHarassmentPartnership disputeAbuse of processOccult allegations

Judgment

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

2.1 The 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.

2.2 It 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.

2.3 It 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.

2.4 It 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.

2.5 It 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/-.

2.6 It 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.

2.7 It 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.

2.8 It 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.

2.9 It 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

2.10 It 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.

2.11 It 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.

2.12 It 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.

2.13 It 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.

2.14 It 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.

2.15 It 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.

2.16 It 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.

2.17 It 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.

3.2 Learned 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.

3.3 Learned 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.

3.4 Learned 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.

3.5 Further, 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.

3.6 Learned 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

3.7 Learned 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.

3.8 Learned 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.

3.9 Learned 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.

3.10 Learned 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.

3.11 Learned 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

4.1 It 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.

4.2 It 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.

4.3 Learned 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.

5.1 Since 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.

5.2 Thus, 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

5.3 On 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.

5.3.1 Hon'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."

5.3.2 In 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.

16.1 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.

Page 22 of 30
R/CR.MA/17974/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

16.2 We 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.”

5.3.3 The 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.”

5.3.4 In 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.

5.3.5 For 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.

5.3.6 The 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.

5.3.7 To 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.

5.4 From 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.

5.5 One 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.

5.6 This 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.

5.7 As 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.

5.8 As 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.

5.9 As 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.

5.10 In 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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/07/2026
12:26:36

Page 30 of 30