Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Compromise Settlement: "A Word Uttered in a Fit of Anger Cannot be Instigation"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice J. C. Doshi, has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 306, 498A, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Rajeshbhai Kurbahnbhai Hathila. The decision, dated November 6, 2023, marks a pivotal moment in understanding the nuances of legal proceedings in cases of alleged instigation of suicide.

The Court, in its wisdom, emphasized, "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation." This observation underscores the Court's approach in distinguishing between actual instigation and mere expressions of anger or frustration.

The FIR in question was registered at the Limkheda Police Station, Dahod, with the original complainant and relatives of the deceased arriving at an amicable settlement with the accused. The Court noted that this settlement was made voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. The learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha, representing the original complainant, confirmed the voluntariness of this settlement in court.

Justice Doshi cited several precedents, including the landmark cases of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State of NCT of Delhi and B S Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, to reinforce the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed in private disputes following a mutual resolution, even if the offences are non-compoundable.

While the learned APP raised objections based on the seriousness of the crime, particularly referencing the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat, the Court found these objections to be insufficient grounds to continue the proceedings. The Court's decision hinged on the lack of evidence for instigation as defined under Section 306 of the IPC.

This ruling is a significant step in understanding the complexities of legal cases involving allegations of instigation to suicide. It also highlights the importance of context and intention behind words or actions alleged to have led to such drastic outcomes.

The Court concluded by ordering the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, thereby directing the release of the accused if not required in any other case. This judgement is expected to set a precedent in cases where the nuances of instigation and the impact of settlements are at the forefront of legal discussions.

Decided on : 06-11-2023

RAJESHBHAI KURBANBHAI HATHILA  VS STATE OF GUJARAT

Similar News