TULSIDAS MADANLAL TAHILIANI(TAHILIANI)( AS PER CHARGE SHEET)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO. 8115
                           of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting              Yes         No
                                                             ✔
==========================================================
TULSIDAS MADANLAL TAHILIANI(TAHILIANI)( AS PER CHARGE SHEET)
                          & ANR.
                           Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR HARISH J SONI(5142) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR. JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                             Date : 11/06/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.       With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final
hearing.


2.       Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
and learned advocate for the complainant waive service of rule.


3.       By way of the present application, the applicants seek to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and thereby seek to


                                  Page 1 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No I-96 of 2019 lodged
before the Chhotaudapur Police Station, and the charge sheet filed
therein and the charge frame order in Sessions Case No.40 of 2023
for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and all other consequential proceedings arising
out of the criminal prosecution,


4.       Learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudarmainly for the
applicants would argue to quash and set aside the impugned FIR
mainly on the grounds that the entire reading of the FIR and the
suicide note which does not attract any of the provisions punishable
under Section 306 of the IPC, more particularly, when there is no
abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Thus, the suicide
note does not reflect any positive action proximate at the time of
occurrence by the accused persons which compels the deceased to
commit suicide, and clearly there are allegations of interference in
the official works to be carried out by the deceased assigned by the
applicants, the No.1 who was the Executive Engineer and applicant
No.2 was the Deputy Executive Engineer. Thus, learned advocate
Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the applicants would contend that over and
above the factual aspects which does falls within the four corners of
provision of Section 107 of the IPC. Even otherwise, the
complainant has filed an affidavit entering into compromise with the
present applicants which is placed on record, and argued to allow the
present application both while arguing on merits as well as on the



                               Page 2 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




ground of compromise.


4.1. While arguing on merits, the learned advocate for the
applicants would relied on the contention of the FIR as well as the
suicide note. The learned advocate would contend that the
allegations qua the applicant No.1 is that, time and again, directly
and indirectly he is mentally harassing, while applicant No.2 is
indirectly tried to create hindrance in the official work and time and
again instigated in the office. Except these allegations, there are no
allegations of over act which would amounts to attract the provisions
of Section 306 read with Section 114 and 34 of the IPC.


4.2. Learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar has relied on the
judgment dated 27.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.19305 of 2020 and order dated 15.10.2024 passed in Special
Criminal Application (Quashing) No.3742 of 2015, to buttress his
arguments both on merits as well as on the ground of compromise,
this Court may quash the complaint and as much as neither does it
attract the provisions of Section 306 nor does the FIR as well the
suicide note fall within the four corners of the Section 107 of the
IPC.


5.       Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay
Mehta would submit that apart from the suicide note there are
various statements of the employees working with the office of the



                               Page 3 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




deceased namely (1) Tersinh Jethabhai Rathva, (2) Babulal Ambalal
Meena, (3) Ashokbhai Rathva, (4) Vitthalbhai Rathva and (5)
Atulbhai Rathva and the person who was earlier working under the
office of the applicants namely Jitendrabhai Rathva, who have stated
that the applicants have pressure tactics and thus, argued to reject the
present application. Learned APP would further submit that on
perusal of the statements of aforestated witnesses, the misbehavour
and pressure tactics adopted by the present applicants would surfaces
on record, and because of that the deceased has committed suicide
and thus, argued to reject the present application.


6.       From the reading of the FIR as well as suicide note, what is
alleged are as follow:


         (1) The complainant Manojbhai who is cousin brother of the
         deceased is residing at village Balvada, Taluka: Chikhali,
         District: Navsari, whereas the deceased was residing at
         Chhotaudepur.

         (2) On 12.10.2019 the deceased had visited at village
         Balvada at Saturday night and at 10 O’clock while the
         complainant had visited his house, his cousin brother –
         deceased had informed that his higher officers were harassing
         him for office work, therefore, it is not possible to work at the
         office at Chhotaudepur.

         (3) On 19.10.2019, the complainant had received a phone
         call from Chhotaudepur that any time before 9 O’clock,
         deceased Vikrambhai had committed suicide, and thus, the

                                  Page 4 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




         suicide note was obtained from his pocket of his pent wherein
         it has stated that “Tahiliyani Sir is responsible for my death
         who time and again directly and indirectly meted out mental
         cruelty as well as Hemang Shah is also responsible for directly
         create obstacles, and time and again he is instigating in the
         office. To take this decision it is very difficult, however, I hope
         that my sacrifice will not go into the vain and my family would
         be facing great difficulty, however, I pray that God gives
         courage to my friends and relatives.”


7.       Having considered the averments made in the complaint as
well as suicide note, what has been stated is exerting mental cruelty
by the applicant No.1 and qua the applicant No.2 the allegations are
creating hindrance in the work and instigating in the office, as to
what are the instigation and hindrances the applicant No.2 has
created is not stated. What type of mental cruelty meted out by the
applicant No.1 is also not stated either directly or indirectly. It may
so happened that the higher officers who used harsh words in the
office with regards to the work undertaken by the deceased and must
also have pressurize him to complete the work. However, there is not
an iota of evidence as to what type of hindrances are created by them
to attract the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC.


8.       It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801 held in paragraphs 23 and 24 as
follows:



                                   Page 5 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




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

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

9.       This Court has to see as to whether in the facts of the present
case, is there anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused
intended the consequences of the act i.e. suicide. Considering the
nature of offence and acquisitions and considering the allegation in
the FIR and suicide note, there is no proof of direct or indirect acts


                                  Page 6 of 8
  R/CR.MA/8115/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




of incitement to commit suicide. Merely, there are allegations of
harassment of meting out mental cruelty without alleging any
positive action proximately is connected at the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused persons which compelled the deceased to
commit suicide would not fall within the four corners of Section 306
read with Section 107 of the IPC. There is no any instigation nor any
conspiracy nor there any intentional aim nor any willful
misrepresentation or concealment of the material facts which come
into the four corners of abetment. Nor is the case of the complainant
that the applicants herein have to play any part or any role in the
conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted into commission
of suicide by the deceased. The factum of mens rea is also absent.
That, there are omnibus allegations without any specific incidents
with regards to the mental cruelty been meted out. Even from the
reading of the statements of the witnesses relied by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assuming for the
moments that the accused had given pressure regards to work or had
humiliated at some instances with regards of the nature of work not
carried out properly, it cannot be said that the acts of the applicants
attract provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC.
There is no compliant qua the applicants with regards to the work to
any of the higher-ups whether in writing or oral other then the
present complaint till date. Thus, being a hyper sensitive the
employee committed suicide, the same would not falls to the offence
attracting Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, coupled



                               Page 7 of 8
     R/CR.MA/8115/2026                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/06/2026




with the facts that the parties have anemically settled. More
particularly, except referring the names of the present applicants, no
allegation of instigation except the allegation stated in suicide note
surfacing on record, and having found that the applicants have not
played any active part or role which ultimately instigated or resulted
in commission of suicide.


10.        Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
application deserves to allow and the same is allowed accordingly.
The impugned FIR being C.R. No I-96 of 2019 lodged before the
Chhotaudapur Police Station, and the consequential proceedings
arising out of the said FIR, are quashed and set aside.


11.        Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.


                                                                                                (P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: NITIN INDRAVADAN MAKWANA(HCW0110), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/06/2026 17:58:22




                                                       Page 8 of 8