Gujarat High Court
Rasikbhai Shamjibhai Chovatiya vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22270 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RASIKBHAI SHAMJIBHAI CHOVATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KM ANTANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
VAIBHAVI D RAVAL(8466) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date: 31/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Issue Rule. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith. Learned APP
waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent State. Learned
Advocate Ms. Vaibhavi D Raval waives service of rule for
Respondent No. 2.
1.1 By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed
to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. 37/2019 lodged with
Manavadar Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offences
punishable under Section 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 alongwith Section 5,40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money
Lenders Act, 2011 and Criminal proceeding arising out thereof
being Criminal Case No. 128/2020 pending before Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Manavadar.
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
2. Brief facts of the FIR are as follows:-
The original Complainant appearing in person at Manavadar
Government Hospital, and give his complaint in writing that:-
“I have been residing at the above-mentioned address in Rajkot
along with my parents for the last twenty years. My father’s children
consist of myself and my younger sister Rusha (aged 14 years). My father
and I run a scrap business in Rajkot. My father has been in this business
for about the last fifteen years, and I assist him in it.
For about the last five years, certain merchants and financiers in
Rajkot were lending their capital on interest to other people at the rate of
3%. Therefore, they used to contact my father to lend their money out on
interest. My father acted as a mediator and got money financed through
his contacts. Upon receiving interest on the financed money, my father
would sometimes hand it over to the principal party, and sometimes the
parties directly managed the interest transactions. Thus, my father acted
as an intermediary.
Sometimes, when the loaned money was not returned, the principal
parties used to call my father and sometimes come in person to torture
him. Regarding this matter, Ramnikbhai Virjibhai Vikani, a resident of
Rajkot, had come to our office, at which time I was also present. At that
time, he quarreled with my father and threatened to implicate him in a
police case. As a result, my father was under constant mental tension.
Money owed to us by merchants in Rajkot city was also not being
returned, while creditors were frequently demanding recovery. Among
them, there was continuous mental harassment for the last two years
from: 1. Ramnikbhai Virjibhai Vikani (Residing in Rajkot) 2. Rasikbhai
Shamjibhai Chovatiya (Residing in Rajkot) 3. Narendrabhai alias
Munnabhai Ghetiya (Residing in Rajkot)Yesterday, on 05/08/2019, until around 1:30 to 2:00 AM at night,
my father was present at our house in Rajkot. When my mother woke up
from her sleep, my father was sitting in the room writing something. My
mother asked him to go to sleep, and then she went back to sleep. This
morning, when we woke up, my father was not found at home. Upon
searching nearby and calling my father, his mobile phone was found to
be switched off.
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
I then called my elder uncle’s son, Tusharbhai, and learned that
my father had gone to Jilana because our grandmother in the family had
passed away. Therefore, my mother and I immediately left for Jilana and
reached there at around 12:30 PM. Upon reaching, we came to know
that my father had committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope tied
to a crossbeam inside a room at our farm/field, and his body had been
taken to Manavadar Government Hospital for a post-mortem
examination. Hence, I immediately came to the hospital, and upon seeing
my father, he was dead, with hanging marks visible around his neck.
The reason for this incident is that through my father’s contacts,
merchants and financiers of Rajkot were lending money on interest.
When the borrowers failed to return the money, the principal parties
repeatedly tortured and threatened my father. In this matter,
approximately 1,00,00,000 (Rupees One Crore) belonging to (1)
Rasikbhai Shamjibhai Chovatiya, (2) Ramnikbhai Virjibhai Vikani, and
(3) Narendrabhai alias Munnabhai Ghetiya (all three residents of
Rajkot) was stuck. These people were frequently making recovery
demands from my father, and money had also been facilitated to other
people through him. Due to the severe mental harassment by these
people, my father was forced to come to our village, Jilana, and died by
hanging himself in a room at the farm. Therefore, it is my complaint to
take appropriate legal action against the above-mentioned individuals.
This much is the fact of my complaint, which is correct and true as
narrated by me.”
3. Learned advocate Mr. Apurva K Jani, would submit that:-
3.1 That the complainant had borrowed money to the tune of
Rs. 25 lakhs on account of a friendly relationship with the present
applicant, and, in fact, a promissory note was also executed for
the said amount between the parties. The deceased himself had
issued five cheques towards repayment of the aforesaid amount
upon the assurance that the said amount would be returned to
the applicant within a period of two months. Owing to the friendly
relationship, the applicant did not demand repaymentPage 3 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
immediately. However, even after seven months, when the
cheques came to be deposited, the same were dishonoured on
account of insufficiency of funds, for which demand notices under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were
issued.
3.2 It is further argued that statement of the complainant dated
10.07.19 was also recorded based on a premise that he found out
a suicide note, and while the complainant had originally named
three persons responsible for the death of the deceased, in fact,
there were as many as 11 persons who were responsible, as
noted in the suicide note, wherein various persons had lent
money through the deceased to different borrowers, and
ultimately, when the original borrowers were unable to pay the
deceased and was being pressurized to return the money, there
was pressure from the said money lenders, and thus, the suicide
note, the deceased implicated all the accused all the persons
stated in the said suicide note in a like manner.
3.3 Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid statement given by
the complainant that he attempted to coerce a settlement with
the accused in one manner or another and thereafter gave them
a clean chit. However, since the petitioners and the other two
accused did not succumb to the alleged illegal demands made by
the complainant, the petitioner came to be named in the FIR. It is
further submitted that there was no proof of any writing or any
other accounts with regard to the eight persons named in the
suicide note, except in respect of the three persons named in the
FIR.
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
3.4 However, he further stated that his father acted as a
mediator and that he did not know who had lent such money or
for what purpose, coupled with the fact that his father had two
firms, namely, Bhumi Lamination and Bhumi Enterprise. However,
after demonetisation, the business was badly affected. Under
such circumstances, when the complainant could not settle the
dispute with the three accused named in the FIR and, having
given a clean chit to the other persons named in the suicide note,
the present applicant and the other two accused stood on the
same footing as the other persons named in the suicide note. As
the complainant also did not possess any writing, proof, account,
or any other evidence in respect of the alleged transactions
involving the applicant, he included the name of the present
petitioner in the FIR with mala fide intention to pressurize him.
3.5 It is further submitted that the complainant is facing
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, wherein the present petitioner is the complainant, and is
facing five criminal cases pending before the learned 5th
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajkot. It is further submitted that the aforesaid cases
were filed on 28.08.2019 after issuance of the statutory demand
notice. However, the FIR in question was lodged on 09.08.2019,
whereas the further statement of the complainant was recorded
on 21.01.2020 in order to avoid the liability arising from the
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, which were initiated by the present petitioner.
3.6 Thus, the present case of the petitioner squarely falls within
the criteria laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR
1992 SC 604.
3.7 Learned advocate would further submit that the deceased,
having borrowed money from the present petitioner and having
allegedly failed to repay the amount, under the circumstances,
even assuming for the moment, for the sake of argument, that
the petitioner was constantly demanding repayment of the
money and was also threatening the deceased, such conduct
would not bring the case within the four corners of Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, submitted that the present
petition deserves to be allowed.
3.8 Lastly, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed
on record a further affidavit of the original complainant,
respondent No. 2, inter alia stating that, on account of the
intervention of mutual friends and well-wishers, and having found
no other material against the petitioner in respect of the alleged
offences, the disputes between the complainant and the
applicant have been amicably settled. The complainant has also
agreed to have the conviction set aside by recording a settlement
in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, and has filed the present affidavit stating
that the FIR in question be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vaibhavi D. Raval for the
complainant would submit that she has no objection if the FIR is
quashed and set aside in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
5. Per contra, the learned APP would submit that grave
offences under the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 and Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code are alleged against the present
petitioner, which fall within the category of heinous and serious
offences and are to be treated as crimes against society rather
than against an individual. Therefore, the offence under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed in the exercise
of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
merely on the ground that the complainant and the petitioner
have resolved their entire dispute among themselves. The
learned APP has, therefore, argued that the present petition
deserves to be rejected.
6. The affidavit of the original respondent No. 2, tendered
across the Bar before this Court, is taken on record. The fact that
the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs.
Laxminarayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held as
follows:
“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this
Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as
under:
15.1 that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised
having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
15.2 such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mentalPage 7 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4 offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of
the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to
go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected
after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is
framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation.Therefore, the
ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra)
should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in
the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 while exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise,
etc.”
In view of the aforesaid principles, without considering the
settlement, this Court is now deciding the present petition on the
merits.
6.1 From a reading of the entire FIR, what is stated by the
informant, namely the son of the deceased, is that due to severe
mental harassment by the three accused persons, namely the
present petitioner, Rasikbhai Shamjibhai Chovatia, and two other
persons, namely Ramanikbhai Virjibhai Vikani and Narendrabhai
alias Munnabhai Ghetia, his father was forced to come to Village
Jilana and committed suicide by hanging, as he owed
approximately ₹1 crore to these persons. It is alleged that these
persons repeatedly taunted and threatened his father when the
borrowers failed to repay the money. From the charge-sheet
papers and the further statement of the informant dated
21.01.2020, it is stated that the present petitioner and the two
other persons, who had advanced money to the father of the
informant at interest, used to constantly demand repayment of
the money and are alleged to have threatened or otherwise
harassed the deceased. However, the nature of the alleged
torture is not stated in a single word by the informant, either in
the FIR or in his further statement dated 21.01.2020.
6.2 As far as the statement dated 21.01.2020 is concerned,
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
apart from the three original accused named in the FIR, there
were eight other persons from whom his father had borrowed
money, which was further advanced to other persons who
required financial assistance. In the said statement dated
21.01.2020, the informant further stated that the entire
transactions were between his father and the aforesaid persons,
and that he did not have any proof or accounts with regard to the
money transactions between them, including how much money
was advanced to other persons and how such money was utilized
by his father.
6.3 It is also stated in the said statement that Bhumi
Lamination and Bhumi Enterprise were the two firms facing
financial constraints after demonetisation, and their businesses
were also badly affected. They were carrying on very meagre
business during that period. In 2019, on the date of declaration of
the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the GST Department also
conducted a raid, after which the business was completely shut
down. According to the informant, it was because of the present
petitioner and two other persons, namely Ramanik Virji and
Narendra Ghetia, that his father died by suicide. However, there
is no proof with regard to the involvement of other persons, but
in the suicide note itself, his father had written the names of
these three persons.
6.4 Even if the suicide note is taken into account, what has
been stated is that Rasikbhai Chovatia, Ramnikbhai Vikani, and
Narendrabhai Ghetia have compelled him to commit suicide.
What has been further stated is that Rasikbhai Chovatia has
lodged a case on his 23-years-old son for 25 lakh rupees, and
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
also threatens that his son Meet will be killed. Lastly, it is stated
that, “I am committing suicide because of the torture of the
lenders.”
6.5 Even from the reading of the suicide note, what did the
lenders torture is not coming on record.
6.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Awase
vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801
has held in para 10 to 19 as under:-
“10. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
11. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First. – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. –
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. – Intentionally
aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
12. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to
attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have
abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of
a thing who Firstly – instigates any person to do that thing or
Secondly – engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly – intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, the
appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- (SCC
p.439, para 3)
“3. …Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite ‘mens rea’ on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events. …”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010)
8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about
the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal, this Court held as
under:- (SCC p.712, para 12)
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.
It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on
the allegation of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it
was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”.
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which case
an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of
the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by
Seema (the appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
“45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position thatPage 13 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/22270/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
he/she committed suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued
course of conduct should have created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger
and emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
6.7 The complainant himself has failed to point out as to what
amount was borrowed by the deceased in his capacity as a
mediator, which his deceased father, in turn, had lent to other
persons who were not repaying the money, coupled with the fact
that he himself, in his further statement dated 21.01.2020, has
stated that he did not have any proof. However, merely because
his father had named these three persons in the suicide note, he
has lodged the FIR. Under such circumstances, the provisions of
Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011,
are also not attracted.
7. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being CR No. 37/2019 lodged with Manavadar
Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offences punishable
under Section 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
alongwith Section 5,40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act,
2011 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
qua the present petitioner, stands quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:17:23 IST 2026
