Gujarat High Court
Yogeshkumar Radheshyam Shah & vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 July, 2015
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
R/CR.MA/13751/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13751 of 2015
================================================================
YOGESHKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHAH & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JM PANCHAL FOR MR KJ PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for Applicant No.1 - 2
MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI
Date : 22/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.J.M.Panchal, learned advocate for Mr.K.J.Panchal, learned advocate for the applicants.
2. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR, on the face of it, do not constitute offence of abetment of the suicide of the deceased. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.6,000/ was outstanding in favour of the applicants from the deceased, who was the erstwhile employee of applicant No.1. The deceased had left the employment and, as stated in the FIR, had met the applicants on 10.06.2015, on which date it is stated that the applicants demanded the outstanding amount and stated that they would come to the house of Page 1 of 4 R/CR.MA/13751/2015 ORDER the deceased, take away his motorcycle and file a complaint.
3. It is submitted that to demand an amount which is outstanding is the legal right of the creditor and cannot be said to amount to an offence of abetment. The test would be whether a prudent person, in a given situation, would commit suicide when the creditor demands the outstanding dues. No abusive language is alleged to have been spoken by the applicants, no threats or assault was made and no disrespect has been shown to the caste of the deceased, even though offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Atrocities Act", for short), have been alleged against the applicants. Had there been any disrespect towards the caste of the deceased, the applicants would not have given the deceased employment or financial help.
4. That the transaction between the applicants and the deceased is merely a money transaction and has nothing to do with offence committed under the Atrocities Act. The deceased met the applicants on 10.06.2015 and committed suicide on 16.06.2015. The complainant was lodged on 08.07.2015. Even if the Page 2 of 4 R/CR.MA/13751/2015 ORDER aspect of delay is not considered, the ingredients of the offence of abetment are not made out against the applicants. There is no aid or instigation or driving the deceased to commit suicide. The necessary mens rea which is required for the commission of the offence is missing. On the contrary, the applicants would wish for the long life of the deceased in order to recover their dues.
5. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments :
(i) Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 CRI.L.J. 3066 (Rajasthan).
(ii) Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1995 CRI.L.J. 893 (Madhya Pradesh).
(iii) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pallem Daniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and others Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor, reported in 1997(1) Crimes 499.
6. It is further submitted that in Nathulal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1966 SC 43, the Supreme Court has stated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence of abetment. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR do not Page 3 of 4 R/CR.MA/13751/2015 ORDER reveal the presence of mens rea, insofar as the applicants are concerned.
7. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1, on the supply of an advance copy of the application has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, in the view of this Court, the learned counsel for the applicants has succeeded in making out a primafacie case for the admission of the application and grant of interim relief.
9. Hence, issue Rule returnable on 01.09.2015.
10. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1.
11. Interim relief in terms of paragraph11(c) is granted, till then.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 4 of 4