MANISHBHAI MAHESHBHAI CHAUDHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                    FIR/ORDER) NO. 8349 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================

               Approved for Reporting                 Yes         No
                                                                  No
==========================================================
                         MANISHBHAI MAHESHBHAI CHAUDHARI
                                       Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANSHU C DESAI(6832) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                 Date : 17/06/2026
                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

1.       The petitioner before this Court is invoking provisions of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Section
528       of    Bhartiya      Nagrik     Sauraksha     Sanhita,     2023)       for
quashment of the First Information Report being Part-A
C.R.No.11214032220383 of 2022 registered with Mandvi
Police Station, Surat for offence under Sections 306 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.       The brief facts, as per the FIR, are to the effect that;

2.1      The complainant Rajeshbhai Mishra is engaged in
Karmakand and was priest in temples. He claims that he had
purchased about five guntha Land for Rupees 2,75,000/- paid
in cash to Sanketbhai Chaudhary in 2018 and built house in
village Balda. He paid this amount within one year from the


                                       Page 1 of 10
   R/CR.MA/8349/2022                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




date of execution of 99 years lease deed as the said land was
73AA type and cannot be sold till it is converted to NA. Total
Land at Block No. 32 Account No. 244 is about 30 Guntha and
he stays there since near 2019-2020.

2.2    The complainant resides since January February 2021
i.e.   land      of    Block   No.     32     purchased       By     Manishbhai
Maheshbhai             Chaudhry      residing       At   Vyara.      When        the
complainant asked Chetanbhai Thakorbhai Choudhry, he told
that the land is purchased by his real brother in law
Manishbhai and after converting into NA, the complainant
shall be given his share of land.


2.3    After consultation with Adv. Mahendrabhai Mahida at
Mandvi, it was learnt that the land has to be converted to NA
in name of Manishbhai and then only he can get his share.
Chetanbhai assured him that the complainant would be given
his share once land is converted to NA. The house tax and
light bill where in name of Sanketbhai only.

2.4    Manishbhai came to the land in evening at 4 o'clock
before about a month and had fixed gate. Manishbhai told to
the complainant to vacate the house and told to remove the
standing crop and also threatened to demolish the house
ignoring the plea of 99 years lease deed.

2.5    On 05/03/2022, wife of Manishbhai Came along with a
tractor and started tilling the land.

2.6    Then after about 10 days, police came and told them that



                                     Page 2 of 10
  R/CR.MA/8349/2022                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




they are illegally residing there. Police summonsed them to
Bardoli      Rural    Police   Station         along    with      proof.      The
Complainant his wife, his son and Chetanbhai went to Bardoli
Rural Police Station at about 2 P.M. No proof of execution of
lease deed could be submitted. PSI informed that the land at
Block No. 32 is legally owned by Manishbhai. The complainant
was advised to strike a compromise with Manishbhai.

2.7   On 30/03/2022, the complainant, his son and his wife
went to police station at about 11 in the morning where
Chetanbhai, Manishbhai, Rakshaben (wife of Manishbhai),
Sanketbhai and mother and brother of Sanketbhai were
present where PSI told that the land is the name of
Manishbhai and two days are there to reach settlement
otherwise report shall be submitted.

2.8   Them at about 3 P.M. the complainant and his son Ankit
went to home on their motorcycles and reached home. Ankit
after lunch at about 5:30 PM. went out on his splendor
motorcycle telling that he has some work at Sarkui. Then
Chetanbhai told at about 6:30 P.M. to search for Ankit.
Complainant tried to contact him on mobile again and again
but his mobile was switched off. So he informed his family
members and started looking for Ankit. In the evening at 7:15
P.M. his son Abhay sent a photo on whatsapp saying that
Ankit has uploaded this on his facebook id. On reading that he
found that it was a suicide note. The complainant was
continuously trying to contact his son and at about 8:00 P.M.
Ankit received mobile call and told that he has consumed
poison and he is lying on the sand of Tapi River below


                                Page 3 of 10
     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                       JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




Sthaneshwar Temple at Kakrapal. Therefore, the complainant
and his wife left for Sthaneshwar Temple. In the meanwhile
Chetan informed that Ankit is found and shifted in 108 at
Mandvi Government Hospital. Therefore they went to Mandvi
and reached at about quarter past Eight where Ankit was
lying on strature in unconscious state and was told that he
had consumed poison on account of tension for land. Doctors
informed that condition of Ankit is serious and should be
shifted to big hospital. Therefore he was taken to Bardoli
Sardar Smarak Hospital and then to Kiran Hospital by
midnight and expired at about 5:00 P.M. on 31/03/2022.

3.       After lodging of the aforestated FIR, a suicide-note was
also recovered which, in the nutshell, reads as under:
       “I had entered into 99 year lease deed for land at Block
       No. 32. Account No. 244 of Village Balda as transfer was
       not possible till NA and it was not possible to acquire
       entire plot therefore the boundries where decided and
       land on Northen side was to be taken from Sanketbhai
       but writing was not done. Then I got land filled and house
       was built within one year. Then I came to know that
       Manishbhai, Brother-in-law of my friend is to aquire this
       land so I spoke to him where Manishbhai told that let NA
       be done, then he will give land. Manishbhai used to come
       to plant coconut tree which were planted after our
       border. After completion of our home, we went to
       Advocate Mahendrabhai who told that there is no sale
       deed so far therefore house should be name of
       Sanketbhai. Therefore house tax was done on name of
       Sanketbhai. When sale deed was executed in favour of
       Manishbhai, we asked him for writing. Manishbhai said
       that I don't remember of anything I don't know you.
       Chetanbhai also breached the trust and today land
       grabling case was filed aginst my father, we had trusted
       them and constructed the house but we don't have any
       evidence I had constructed the house with hard work and
       unable to stay there anymore, therefore I am ending my


                              Page 4 of 10
     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




       life and Manishbhai Maheshbhai Patel is only reason for
       this. I bow to everyone and say that I had strong desire to
       live but die without any fault as the hardwork and trust of
       my life is broken. I understood that not to trust anyone
       with blind eye."

       "I had entered into 99 years lease deed on 12/11/2018 for
       land at Block No. 32 as advocate Dharmeshbhai told that
       sale deed cannot be done for fregnented land therefore
       entered into lease deed and construct our house and
       when someone purchased this entire land and gets NA
       done land will be done in our name. Then we had done
       land filling and constructed the house My friend
       Chetanbhai had shown boundary of the land to
       Manishbhai and assured us that our land will be given to
       us after NA. On advise of Advocate Dharmeshbhai, the
       property tax was registered in name of Sanketbhai. We
       borrowed huge funds on interest and started residing in
       the house. After entire land was transferred on name of
       Manishbhai, he told us to forget old talks’ and Maharaj
       should leave within one month otherwise there will be
       court case. I made mistake by trusting him. Chetanbhai
       also could not do anything. I telephoned his wife but she
       is saying that she is unable to convince her husband. Then
       I telephoned him 3 times but he disconnected after
       hearing my name and did not talk to me therefore for
       protecting my house, I am taking this step. Manishkumar
       Maheshbhai Patel is responsible for my death end no one
       else. I hope that my family can stay in the house and on
       the land peacefully after my death. The deal for this land
       was done not on basis of guntha but by showing the
       boundaries.”
4.       Mr.Himanshu C. Desai, learned advocate would submit
that the land in question purchaed by the present petitioner
from the original land owner which is a restricted tenure land
under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and
since the said land was purchased after taking proper
permission from the Collector, he had entered into sale-deed
dated        08.11.2021.   However,     the   original    land      owner,



                               Page 5 of 10
     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




deceased and his family members including the complainant
did not vacate the premises therfore, lodged the complaint
under        the     Land    Grabbing        Act.     Thus,   the    son     of   the
complainant committed sucide leaving the suicide note
alleging that the because of the petitioner though the
deceased and his family members have invested the amount to
construct the house over the property, they could not enjoy
and thus it causes the deceased to commit the suicide.

4.1      Mr.Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner argued
that none of the ingredients of ‘abetment’ are atttracted from
the plain reading of the FIR since the applicant was not aware
with regard to any transaction that the original land owner
Sanketbhai had entered into with the complainant and thus
Mr.Desai, learned advocate has argued that no case is made
out for the alleged offences and more particularly has relied
upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Prakash and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another         arising     out   of   Special        Leave    Petition       (Cri.)
No.1073 of 2023 dated 20.12.2024 and in the case of
M.Mohan vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of
Police reported in AIR 2011 1238 and argued to allow the
present petition.

5.       Mr.Jay Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the Respondent State and Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate
for the original complainant – Respondent No.2 herein
submitted that it is at the behest of the present petitioner that
the son of the complainant committed suicide because while
the present petitioner decided to purchase the said property,


                                       Page 6 of 10
     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                       JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




it was informed that 5 bighas of land would be given to the
complainant and his family members once the permission
from the Collector to sell the land and NA permission is
obtained. However, having failed to keep his promise, and
with a view to take undue advantage, the petitioner had
lodged complaint under the Land Grabbing Act and thus the
son of the complainant committed suicide. It is argued that it
cannot be said that no case is made out more particularly
referring the statement of witness Chetanbhai Thakorbhai
Chaudhari, who was witness to 99 years lease-deed entered
between the original land owner and the complainant and he
is also witness to registered sale-deed entered between the
petitioenr and original land ownder.

5.1      Learned advocates have jointly submitted that original
land owner has also filed an affidavit before the concerned
Land Grabbing Authority stating that 5 bighas of land was to
be handed over to the original complainant and his family
members and thus, it cannot be said that the applicant has no
role to play when a young person aged about 23 years
committed suicide because lost his house based on false
promise given by the present petitioner and having backed off
from the said promise, the son of the complainant committed
suicide.

6.       Heard learned advocates for the parties.

7.       ‘Abetment’ is defined under Section 107 of the IPC and
upon reading of the said definition and to satisfy the
requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actually


                              Page 7 of 10
  R/CR.MA/8349/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




words would be used to that effect or what constitutes
instigation must necessarily and specifically is subjective of
the   consequences,   however,       the   FIR,   with     reasonable
certainity to incite the consequences, must be capable of
being spelled out on its plain reading. It is also impossible to
lay down straight jacket formula as to what would amount to
‘instigation’ and ‘goading’ and each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Since
the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
commiting suicie, conviction cannot be sustained.


7.1   The question which falls for consideration is that
whether from the entire material on record can this Court
arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is connected with the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC ?

7.2   Thus, without a positive act on the part of the petitioner
– accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide,
when conviction cannot be sustained and going through the
FIR as well as suicide note and also investigation papers, no
clear mens rea to commit an offence is surfacing on record.
Not only that, no active or direct act which leads the deceased
to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act was
intended to push the deceased in such a position that he had
no other option but to commit suicide, it cannot be said that
present petitioner has committed offence under Section 306
of IPC. More particularly, in view of the fact that land being of



                            Page 8 of 10
  R/CR.MA/8349/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




restricted tenure under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code, even assuming for the moment that the
complainant had entered into an agreement for lease of 99
years would have no legal sanctity.
7.3   It would be also evident from the reading of suicide note
that the son of the complainant and the complainant had also
approached the advocate who had advised them and they had
acted accordingly.


7.4   There is nothing on record to point out that the
petitioner had mens rea. There is nothing evident from the
papers of the charge-sheet even to presume or infer the
element of mens rea which is an essential ingredient to invoke
the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. There is no incitement or
provocation to encourage to commit suicide and except for
bare words that petitioner was to give 5 bighas of land, would
be of no consequences and nothing more could be gathered
from the facts of the present case that the present petitioner
by his acts and his continuous course of conduct created a
situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option
but to commit suicide. There is no active role which tarnishes
self-esteem or self-respect of the deceased which eventually
drew him to commit suicide. Even assuming for the moment
that petitioner had agreed to give 5 bighas of land it falls sort
of offence of abetment of offence of suicide. Thus taking note
of surrounding facts and circumstances and factors, the
deceased having reacted in a different way cannot be said that
the petitioner had abetted the offence as alleged. Even
assuming for the moment that petitioner had stated that ‘you


                            Page 9 of 10
     R/CR.MA/8349/2022                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026




forget everything, nothing can be done’ without intending
consequences which may follow and the same cannot be
termed as ‘instigation’.

7.5       The judgments relied upon by learned advocate for the
petitioner in case of Prakash and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another (supra) and in the case of
M.Mohan vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of
Police (supra), the arguments as advanced by learned
advocate would be fortified from the law settled therein and
hence are considered while deciding the present petition.

8.        Having said that this Court is of the considered opinion
that very sad incident has taken place whereby young boy
aged 23 years committed suicide for which father has filed
complaint, however, having found that petitioner has not
committed               any        crime          as       alleged,           the       continuation                 of
investigation of an FIR and the petitioner to face the trial
would amount to abuse of process of Law, more particularly
when the FIR and other materials accompanying the FIR and
the police paper do not disclose an offence attracting the
provisions of Section 306 of IPC.

9.        In view of foregoing discussion, the present petition
requires to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The FIR
impugned                  in        the         present               petition             being            Part-A
C.R.No.11214032220383 of 2022 registered with Mandvi
Police Station, Surat is hereby quashed and set aside.


                                                                                             (P. M. RAVAL, J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AMIT VISHNUPRASAD MISHRA(HC00187), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/06/2026 11:59:02


                                                    Page 10 of 10