Holding

The Court held that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC and, given the settlement and absence of a prima facie case, it must be quashed and set aside under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat considered an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by accused Hiren Dhanjibhai Vaghamashi (accused‑3) seeking quashal of FIR No. 11191013220564 (2022) which alleged offences under IPC 306, 506(2), 114 and IT Act 67(e)(a) relating to the suicide of a young woman. The complainant’s father and the deceased’s parents had entered into an amicable settlement and filed an affidavit stating they had no grievance against the accused. The trial court had earlier acquitted the other accused due to lack of evidence, and the parents turned hostile, denying any abetment. The Court examined whether the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC (abetment of suicide) were present and concluded that no prima‑facie case existed, especially given the settlement and absence of incriminating evidence against the accused residing abroad. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR can be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement and lack of prima facie evidence.
Whether the facts alleged satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 IPC for abetment of suicide.
Whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to CrPC 482) can be invoked to quash the FIR.
Whether the alleged offences under IPC 306, 506(2), 114 and IT Act 67(e)(a) are maintainable in view of the evidence.
Effect of the accused’s absence from India on liability.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 114, s. 306, s. 506(2)
Information Technology Act, 2000s. 67(e)(a)

Subjects

abetment of suicideFIR quashsettlementSection 528Section 107 IPCCriminal intimidationIT Actinherent powers of court

Judgment

R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 3002
of 2026

================================================================
HIREN DHANJIBHIA VAGHAMASHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JAGAT V PATEL(7480) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KEVIN N PATEL(12189) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KRINA CALL, APP for the Respondent No. 1
MR RAHIL JAIN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 2
================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS

Date : 20/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina

P.Calla waives service of notice of rule for and behalf of the

respondent no.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Rahil Jain

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 no.3, who is the

younger brother of the accused no.2 whose engagement was

Page 1 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

performed with the deceased, seeks to invoke the inherent

powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the

First Information Report No.11191013220564 of 2022

registered with the Krishnanagar Police Station,

Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections

306, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Section 67(e)(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant’s

daughter (i.e. the deceased) got engaged with the accused

no.1 (i.e. the son of the accused no.2). However,

subsequently, upon discovering his addictions and

infidelity, the deceased reported the same to her father,

who, in turn, broke off her engagement to the accused no.1.

It is alleged that thereafter the deceased became acquainted

with one Harsh Patel, who was living on the upper floor of

her house, and they both took a trip, during which they

created and posted videos to the deceased’s Instragram

account, which the accused no.1 had password access. It is

further alleged that the said videos were thereafter sent by

Page 2 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

the mother of the accused no.1 (i.e. the accused no.2) on the

Whatsapp account of the aunt of the deceased, which were

subsequently sent to the complainant. It is further alleged

that after the complainant questioned the deceased about

the matter, she became deeply distressed and withdrawn.

Ultimately, on 23.06.2022 in the afternoon, she took a

drastic step and committed suicide by hanging herself,

leaving behind a suicide note. The complainant had filed a

complaint in this regard, which was first registered as

Accidental Death No.32 of 2002, and subsequently, it was

registered as First Information Report No.11191013220564

of 2022 with the Krishnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad,

for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 114

of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67(e)(a) of the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Jagat V.Patel

appearing for the applicant-accused no.3 has submitted

that settlement has been arrived at between the parents of

the deceased and the applicant. The complainant, who is

Page 3 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

the father of the deceased, has filed an affidavit dated

30.01.2026 annexed at Annexure-B to the application, inter

alia, specifically stating that the dispute has been amicably

settled with the present applicant-accused and he has no

objection if the impugned FIR is quashed and set-aside.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has further submitted that

the present applicant-accused no.3 is the real younger

brother of the accused no.1, who resides in Australia and

was not even present in India at the time when the alleged

incident had occurred.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has submitted that after the

investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused

nos.1 and 2, which came to be registered as Sessions Case

No.251 of 2023; however, since the present applicant -

accused no.3 was not available in India, he was not arrested

and was shown as an absconding accused in the Column

No.2 of the charge-sheet.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has further submitted that

Page 4 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

both the parents of the deceased in their respective evidence

at Exhibits-39 and 41 have specifically stated before the

trial court that since her daughter was suffering from

depression, she committed suicide. Furthermore, they both

have denied the fact that she committed suicide as the

accused no.1 had made her videos viral. Learned advocate

has, therefore, submitted that considering the fact that both

the parents of the deceased have not supported the case of

the prosecution and have turned hostile, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.7,

Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 01.01.2026,

after appreciating the entire evidence on record, acquitted

both the accused nos.1 and 2 from all the charges levelled

against them. Learned advocate Mr.Patel has, therefore,

urged that considering the aforesaid, the present application

may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and

set-aside qua the present applicant.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Rahil Jain appearing for the

complainant has submitted that considering the fact that

Page 5 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

the matter has been amicably settled between the parties

and an affidavit to that effect has also been filed by the

complainant, the present application may be allowed and

the impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings

may be quashed and set-aside.

9. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the

respondent – State has vehemently opposed the present

application and has submitted that having regard to the

gravamen and seriousness of the offence, the application

may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.

10. 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

Page 6 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

requires a full-fledged trial.

11. 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 intended to push the deceased to such a

position under which he or she would have no choice but to

commit suicide. Such instigation must be in proximity to

the act of committing suicide. In the present case, it appears

that after the complainant questioned the deceased about

the matter, she became deeply distressed and withdrawn;

ultimately, she committed suicide by hanging herself. There

is no evidence on record to suggest as to what had

happened immediately preceding the alleged incident.

Moreover, even the parents of the deceased themselves have

also not supported the case of the prosecution and have

stated that their daughter was suffering from depression,

due to which, she committed suicide. They have even denied

the fact that as the accused no.1 made her video viral, she

committed suicide.

Page 7 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

12. It is noteworthy that the trial court, after appreciating

the entire evidence, more particularly, the evidence of the

panch-witnesses, the Investigating Officer and the parents

of the deceased along with the suicide note, arrived at the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt since the star witnesses have not

supported the case. The trial court has also recorded that

after registration of the Accidental Death entry and during

the investigation of the same, all the witnesses have

specifically stated in their respective statement that since

the engagement of the deceased got broken, she committed

suicide. Considering all the aforesaid, the trial court

acquitted the accused nos.1 and 2 from all the charges

levelled against them.

13. It is an undisputed fact that the present applicant,

who resides in Australia since long, was not present in India

at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, it appears that

the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged

offence appears to be doubtful. The court has carefully

Page 8 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

considered the entire material on record and is satisfied that

there is no incriminating evidence on record to implicate the

present applicant in the alleged offence.

14. The complainant – Niteshbhai Virjibhai Ahir

(Baldaniya), who is the father of the deceased, has filed his

affidavit dated 30.01.2026 at Annexure-B to the application,

inter alia, stating thus :

“2. I state that I file an FIR vide C.R.
No.11191013220564 of 2022 before Krishnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 114 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 67(e)(a) of IT Act against the
applicant/accused.

3. I state that as due to interference of the respected
members of the society and family, mutual
understanding is arrived between me and Applicants in
the above said F.I.R i.e. Hiren Dhanjibhai Vaghamashi
i.e. Applicant/Accused and now I don't have any
grievance with them. That it is stated that the
settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, consciously
and with free consent, without any coercion, pressure,
inducement or undue influence from either party.

4. I state that now dispute is amicably settled
between me and Applicants and for the betterment of
the future of both the parties it has been decided to
settle the dispute and it has been agreed that from now

Page 9 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

onwards the applicant/ accused or any of his
associates will never try to contact me, communicate
with me or disturb me or my family members through
any mode that phone calls, messages, social media,
emails, relatives, friends or third parties. I also state
that the prime accused against whom the charge-sheet
came to filed and session case no. 251 of 2023 came to
be registered had faced the trial and came to be
acquitted by the Ld. Trail Court vide judgment dated
01/01/2025.

5. I further state that as such now I intend that I
have no objection if the said F.I.R. vide C.R.
No.11191013220564 of 2022 before Krishnanagar
Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 114 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 67(e)(a) of IT Act against the
applicant and all prior and subsequent proceeding qua
applicant i.e. Hiren Dhanjibhai Vaghamashi is quashed
and set aside.”

15. On bare reading of the impugned FIR, this Court finds

that the essential ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian

Penal Code are not attracted. Moreover, with star witnesses

turning hostile and the dispute already settled, continuing

the prosecution would be a futile exercise.

16. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision of the

Supreme Court in case of Shenbagavalli and others vs.

Page 10 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

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

Page 11 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

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.

Page 12 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

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

Page 13 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

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.”

17. 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 an extraordinary power 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.

18. In the result, the present application is allowed. The

First Information Report No.11191013220564 of 2022

registered with the Krishnanagar Police Station,

Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections

306, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Section 67(e)(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is

Page 14 of 15
R/CR.MA/3002/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026

hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside. All

consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also

terminated.

19. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(VIMAL K. VYAS, J.)
/MOINUDDIN

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MOINUDDIN ABDULLAH SAIYED(HC00172), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/03/2026 18:09:37

Page 15 of 15