GUNVANTBHAI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashment of the FIR being I-CR No.86 of 2019 registered with Sarkhej Police Station for the offence punishable under Ss. 306, 114 and 506(2) of the IPC, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Oza for the petitioner would submit that plain reading of the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of Sec. 107 of the IPC which quite needed to put the allegations of offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC. He would further submit that according to the FIR, the petitioner and his partner have given some construction work to the deceased to be completed within particular period and if the said work is completed prior to limit decided then petitioner will pay some more amount but since the petitioner and his partners have not paid the said amount, which promoted the deceased to commit suicide. In the submission of leaned advocate for the petitioner, the contents of the FIR is insufficient to make out the offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC. It is further submitted that petitioner is out of India for the period between 19/03/2019 and 26/07/2019 and in support thereof the copy of passport and is also enclosed showing the said fact and thus there is no proximity prior to the alleged incident which promoted the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that petitioner has given huge amount which is almost completing the amount required to be paid for the construction work; yet the deceased was demanding more amount and thus considering the said facts, it is submitted that permitting the petitioner to trial would be abuse of process of law.

(2.) Though served, respondent no.3 did not remain present to contest the petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned APP for the respondent - State would referring the statement recorded during the investigation and part of the chargesheet papers submit that monetary transaction took place between the party did not yield any result in favour of the deceased which promoted him to commit suicide as he could not pay the amount to the petitioner which he borrowed to complete the construction work; within the stipulated time period as decided between them. He would therefore submit that since the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and when prima facie material is found against the petitioner, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to quash the FIR in question.