The Court held that filing complaints alleging land grabbing and forgery was an exercise of legal remedies and could not, by itself, amount to instigation or abetment of suicide.
FIR Quashed Against POA Holder
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an abetment of suicide FIR against a power-of-attorney holder in a land dispute case, holding that the material on record did not disclose the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. Justice P.M. Raval delivered the judgment on June 17, 2026, in Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Gohil v State of Gujarat & Anr., R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 23600 of 2022.
Applicant Invoked Section 482 CrPC
The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11191035210798 of 2021 registered at Naroda Police Station. Police registered the FIR on May 12, 2021, for offences under Sections 306, 506(2), and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with all consequential proceedings.
Dispute Over Alleged 20% Land Profit
According to the FIR, the complainant’s father, Madhubhai, allegedly assisted Prabhudasbhai, an NRI living in London, in connection with land at village Ratanpur. The complainant claimed the parties had agreed to give Madhubhai 20% of the profit from the transaction. However, he alleged that the amount was never paid.
Suicide Note Allegedly Referred to Dispute
Madhubhai died on May 7, 2021. The complainant claimed that family members found a four-page note near his bed the following day. According to the note, the promised 20% profit from the Ratanpur land deal was withheld, prompting him to take the extreme step.
Land Grabbing Case Preceded Suicide
Meanwhile, an earlier case had been registered at Dabhoda Police Station as C.R. No. 11216004210091 of 2021 under Sections 456, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC and Sections 4(1) and 4(3-5) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that the registration of that case caused severe stress to Madhubhai. He further claimed that the applicant demanded Rs. 90 lakh for a compromise and insisted that Madhubhai give up his alleged 20% share.
Discharge Plea Rejected
After completing the investigation, police filed a charge sheet in the case. Subsequently, the Sessions Court rejected the applicant’s discharge application below Exh. 8 in Sessions Case No. 379 of 2021 on December 8, 2022. The applicant then approached the High Court.
Applicant Denied Any Agreement
Appearing for the applicant, Mr. Ashish M. Dagli argued that investigators failed to collect crucial documents. He contended that even if the FIR allegations were accepted as true, they did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
Forgery Allegations Raised
The applicant denied executing any agreement with the deceased. He also argued that the deceased never had any legal right, title, or interest in the land. Furthermore, he pointed out that he had already lodged an FIR alleging that the deceased created a forged Agreement to Sell. According to him, the land was worth nearly Rs. 4.11 crore, yet the deceased claimed to have paid only Rs. 51 lakh.
State Opposed Quashing
The State opposed the application and argued that the circumstances leading to the suicide reflected the applicant’s conduct. The order records Mr. Rohan Shah, APP, for respondent No. 1 in the appearance section, while the submissions portion refers to learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani.
Complainant Relied on Suicide Note
Counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. Mahesh B. Bariya, assisted by Mr. Ravindra P. Patel, adopted the State’s submissions. They argued that the applicant demanded Rs. 90 lakh, attempted to deprive the deceased of his alleged entitlement, and that the suicide note specifically referred to his conduct.
Court Relied on Supreme Court Precedent
The High Court relied on Mahendra Awase v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801. The Supreme Court had reiterated that courts must apply a higher threshold before invoking Section 306 IPC. It also cautioned trial courts against framing charges casually in abetment of suicide FIR cases.
No Enforceable Proof of 20% Share
The Court found that the claim regarding the deceased’s entitlement to a 20% share remained a bare assertion. Moreover, neither the deceased nor the complainant had filed any civil proceedings to establish that alleged right despite relying on an Agreement to Sell.
No Direct Instigation Established
The Court held that no material showed any direct or active act by the applicant that left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide. Instead, the record suggested that the deceased remained under stress because of the pending criminal proceedings and the resulting social consequences.
Legal Remedies Do Not Constitute Abetment
The Court further held that the applicant merely exercised his legal remedies by filing complaints alleging land grabbing and forgery. Therefore, those actions could not be treated as an attempt to compel the deceased to commit suicide. Likewise, filing such complaints, by itself, did not amount to instigation or abetment.
Proceedings Held to Be Abuse of Process
Finally, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Since the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, the Court found no justification for putting the applicant on trial.
FIR Quashed Qua Applicant
Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court allowed the application and quashed FIR C.R. No. 11191035210798 of 2021 registered with Naroda Police Station. It also set aside all consequential proceedings arising from the FIR against the present applicant.
