Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rajubhai Lakhabhai Bharwad and Hetal Natvarlal Desai (i.e. accused nos.2 and 3), who started to speak badly with the father of the complainant and by then accused no.4 viz. Bhavesh Shawani came and forced him to give a notarized document immediatley in relevance to the disputed land and took them to a notary viz. Hitesh Kanji Solanki at 11:00 p.m. at night, and thereby, threatened them to sign the said documents. Complainant was forced to be the witness therein. Thereafter, on 03.01.2020, they had made a notarized document of declaration before the Notary viz. Bharat R. Chauhan. However, due to fear, it was not produced anywhere and the partner of accused no.6 i.e. accused no.5 had told the father of the complainant that if the said land is transferred in the name of accused no.2 or any person, he has no objection and had given a written notarized document to that extent. Thereafter, accused no.2 had asked for the same in the end of January, at that time, the complainant had asked for a detailed document in those regards which was denied and told that only normal document will be given. Thereafter, on 04.02.2020, 4­5, police officers had come to the house to call the father of the complainant, but the mother had denied as the father was not well and was asleep and on the knowledge of the same, the brother of the complainant had sent an application to the S.P., against the same through whatsapp after which the police officers had returned back. Thereafter, on 18.02.2020, accused nos.2, 3, 7 (i.e. present applicant) and accused no.8 had to the house of the complainant with ready document of satakhat along with possession and showed the signature and videography of the father of the complainant and had told to prepare for sale deed and given cheques amounting to Rs.7,55,00,000/­ of different banks and had taken back the prior cheques of other party worth Rs.7,48,00,000/­ and told to give paper notice that the said land is not sold to anyone. The same were denied by them as proper documentation was required in order to avoid tax disputes and the prior documentation as to accused no.3. Therefore, a dispute had arisen again and on 30.07.2020, in Bhesna Gam in a farm house, Police Inspector (i.e. accused no.1), who was home quarantined, had called them by sending whatsapp location and on reaching at the location, other accused nos.2, 4, 9 and 10 were present and the complainant and his brother were threatened and a notarized agreement of even lesser value was made and sent to the house of the complainant along with accused nos.2, 3, 4, 9 and other police officials for signature of father of the complainant along with authority to do paper publication. Therefore, the said publication was done in paper on 01.08.2020. Thereafter, due to less payment and improper documentation, the sale deed was denied by the complainant and accused no.1 (P.I.) had kept the documents with him informing that if he makes the sale deed then only he will give back the papers. Thereafter, the complainant and his father and brother got notice from Rander Police Station and got called for giving reply, but due to fear, they did not go to the Police Station and gave reply in writing. The complainant had told his father on 06th September, to come early next day so as to go to the Commissioner to make a complaint in the matter of land dispute. However, due to the pressure created by the accused persons named in the FIR, since past months, the father of the complainant had committed suicide according to the complainant, in the morning. Therefore, the said FIR came to be filed subsequently against accused persons as narrated in the FIR in detail.

8. Son of the deceased received a call on 07.09.2020, at around 04:30 a.m. in the morning, the complainant got a call from his brother informing that the Manager i.e. Sandeepbhai has informed that father has lost and therefore, the complainant went to the quarry in his car and reached there by 05:45 a.m. and the brother also reached. Thereafter, the complainant and on searching the quarry along with the Manager and other friends a torch, chappal and mobile of the father were found from the entrance of the quarry in front of the office. While searching the father of the complainant, the Manager informed that at 03:45 a.m. in the morning, the father of the complainant had called the Manager and informed that when the complainant comes to the office, he will give him the note which is kept in the diary of his father. Therefore, the complainant asked that if the Manager had read the note to which, he denied and handed over the note to the complainant which was written by the father of the complainant. It was written in the note that the father of the complainant had a property of 10218 sq. mtrs. in Adajan, Surat which was sold to accused no.6 viz. Kishorbhai Bhurabhai on 17.03.2015, based on an agreement to sell on a note at Rs.24,03,88,687/­ and accused nos.6 and 5 i.e. Kishorbhai Bhurabhai and Kanaiyalal Narola had paid worth Rs.18,00,00,000/­ in cash to the father of the complainant on different dates and Rs.3,09,30,584/­ by cheques of different banks. Accused no.6 was the owner of Star Group and on 17.08.2016, a tax raid was made on his premises and based on the note of agreement to sell, there was a tax inquiry on the complainant as well. As a result of the tax inquiry, all the truth was told by the father of the complainant, however, accused no.6 had hidden names of his partners and therefore, the liability of paying tax of Rs.8,49,49,020/­ was fixed by the Income Tax Department on the head of the father of the complainant and further, due to sale deed on the original value, additional capital gain tax on Rs.4,80,00,000/­ was also fixed on the shoulder of the father of the complainant which comes to Rs.13,00,00,000/­ and father of the complainant had talked to accused no.6 in respect of clearing liability fixed by the Income Tax Department and accused no.6 had assured him to pay the same. Thereafter, it appears that on 30.01.2019, accused no.6 had sent a legal notice against the promise and statement given to income tax department to which the father of the complainant had replied through his advocate on 04.02.2019. Thereafter, on 02.01.2020, at around 7­8 p.m., some Police Officers came to the house of the complainant and asked the father to come to Police Station as Police Inspector (i.e. accused no.1) has called him immediately, but it was refused by the father of the complainant as it was late and informed that he will come tomorrow. However, the police officials forced him to come to Police Station, and therefore, the complainant along with his father went to the Police Station where in the office of the Police Inspector, there were two persons viz. Rajubhai Lakhabhai Bharwad and Hetal Natvarlal Desai (i.e. accused nos.2 and 3), who started to speak badly with the father of the complainant and by then accused no.4 viz. Bhavesh Shawani came and forced to immediately give a notarized document in relevance to the disputed land and took them to a notary viz. Hitesh Kanji Solanki at 11:00 p.m. at night and they threatened them to sign the said documents and the complainant was forced to be the witness therein. Thereafter, on 03.01.2020, they had made a notarized document of declaration before the Notary viz. Bharat R. Chauhan. However, as per the contents of the FIR, due to fear, it was not produced anywhere and the partner of accused no.6 i.e. accused no.5 had told the father of the complainant that if the said land is transferred in the name of accused no.2 or any person, he has no objection and had given a written notarized document to that extent. Thereafter, accused no.2 had asked for the same in the end of January, which was denied by the father of the complainant and on 04.02.2020, 4 to 5, police officers had visited the house to call the father of the complainant, but his wife had denied as the father was not well and was asleep and on the knowledge of the same, the brother of the complainant had sent an application to the S.P., against the same through whatsapp after which the police officers had returned back. Upto this moment, applicant had never come into picture in the alleged offence in any transaction of the land nor was in contact with the deceased or any other accused persons. For the first time, as per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2020, accused nos.2, 3, 7 (i.e. present applicant) and accused no.8 had visited the house of the complainant with ready document of satakhat along with possession and showed the signature and videography of the father of the complainant and had told to prepare for sale deed and given cheques amounting to Rs.7,55,00,000/­ of different banks and had taken back the prior cheques of other party worth Rs.7,48,00,000/­ and told to give paper notice that the said land is not sold to anyone. The same was denied by them as proper documentation was required in order to avoid tax disputes and the prior documentation as to accused no.3. Again on 30.07.2020, in Bhesna Gam in a farm house, the dispute was arisen and accused no.1 was home quarantined and had called the complainant by sending whatsapp location and on reaching at the location, other accused nos.2, 4, 9 and 10 were present and the complainant and his brother were threatened and a notarized agreement of even lesser value was made and sent to the house of the complainant along with accused nos.2, 3, 4, 9 and other police officials for signature of father of the complainant along with authority to do paper publication. As per the complaint, the said publication was done in paper on 01.08.2020. Thereafter, due to less payment and improper documentation, the sale deed was denied by the complainant and accused no.1 (P.I.) had kept the documents with him informing that if he makes the sale deed then only he will give back the papers. Thereafter, the complainant and his father and brother got notice from Rander Police Station and got called for giving reply, but due to fear, they did not go to the Police Station and gave reply in writing. The complainant had told his father on 06th September, to come early next day so as to go to the Commissioner to make a complaint in the matter of land dispute. From the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it appears that present applicant was not in contact with the deceased based on the call details record (CDR). As per the CDR, the applicant had allegedly met the other accused persons and the complainant lastly in the month of March­ 2020, and thereafter, he had not met with anyone of them. The deceased committed suicide in the month of September­ 2020. It further appears that applicant is not named in the suicide note written by the deceased. Prima facie, from the contents of the FIR and in the chargesheet papers, it appears that the dispute is pertaining to the land transaction and income tax liability with which even as per the case of the prosecution, present applicant has nothing to do with and therefore, there cannot be motive or intention or reason on the part of the applicant to participate in the alleged offence. If we consider the case of the prosecution, the applicant was to accompany other accused persons on 18.02.2020 and agreement to sell was executed and cheques were replaced of new purchaser. The said act of execution of agreement to sell with possession can be said voluntary act on the part of the deceased - father of the first informant with a condition only after fulfillment of condition as mentioned in previous agreement to sell and only after receipt of some bank guarantee like papers for income tax liability, sale deed will be executed. Accompanying co­accused at the residence of the deceased, there was no dispute between deceased­father of the first informant and other accused persons. From the chargesheet papers also, it appears that applicant had never participated in the alleged act of threatening in the farm house of accused no.1. From the FIR and chargesheet papers, prima facie, no ingredients for the purpose of constituting alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. For the purpose of alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, abatement as defined under Section 107 of the IPC is must. Abatement has to be in near proximity of the alleged act of the commission of the suicide as well as it has to be so grave in nature due to which deceased was not left with any other option, but to commit suicide. From the chargesheet papers, it appears that in the present offence, there is no such incident mentioned or happened in fact in near proximity of time which can be termed as abatement. Further, there is no act on the aprt of the applicant which amounts to abatement, no abatement in near proximity of the time so as to attract the alleged offence as narrated in the chagesheet is found from the chargesheet papers. For the purpose of constituting alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and it also requires an active act or direct act which would led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he would commit suicide. Abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied for the purpose of constituting alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC which is not the case in this present matter. Ingredients of alleged offence are not fulfilled against present applicant.