In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against a lawyer engaged by a woman in a matrimonial dispute. The court observed that the allegations made in the FIR did not constitute the offense of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was heard by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi.
Background of the Case
The case centered around a matrimonial dispute between the deceased husband, referred to as “P,” and his wife, identified as “S.” The couple had been married for seven years and had two children. Due to alleged continuous harassment by the husband, the wife had left the matrimonial home and filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), along with an application under the Domestic Violence Act.
The deceased was unable to pay the maintenance as ordered by the court and reportedly borrowed money to meet the financial obligations. The FIR, registered as C.R. No.I-11/2019 with the โBโ Division Police Station, Rajkot City, alleged that the lawyer, identified as the third accused, and the wife had demanded a lump-sum payment of Rs. 7,00,000 for a full and final settlement. The FIR further alleged that due to the pressure of this demand, the deceased consumed poison and later died during treatment in a hospital.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of Sections 306 (Abetment of Suicide), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 114 (Abettor present when offense is committed) of the IPC. The crux of the argument was whether the actions of the lawyer in advising her client amounted to abetment of suicide, thereby making her liable under Section 306 IPC.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Joshi, in his judgment, underscored the importance of establishing a direct link between the actions of the accused and the suicide. The court held that there was no instigation or active role played by the lawyer that could be construed as abetment to suicide. The judgment emphasized that simply providing legal advice in the course of one’s professional duty does not amount to instigation or abetment.
The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan and S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., to underscore that for an offense under Section 306 IPC to be made out, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional aiding of the suicide by the accused.
Justice Joshi further noted that the deceased, in his dying declaration, did not implicate the lawyer or attribute any blame to her for his decision to commit suicide. The court concluded that the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the lawyer were an abuse of the process of law and quashed both the FIR and the related criminal case.
Also Read
The case was represented by Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the lawyer, Mr. Nandish H. Thackar for the wife and her mother-in-law, and Mr. Trupesh Karathiya, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. The original complainant, the deceased’s brother, was represented by Mr. Rajesh P. Raval. The case numbers involved were Criminal Misc. Application No. 1595 of 2019 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 6042 of 2019.
