MOHANBHAI RAJABHAI MAKWANA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7151 of 2016
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19122 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MOHANBHAI RAJABHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 31/08/2026

JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the
applicants places on record a photocopy of the order passed
below Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2015, wherein it is
recorded that applicant No.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
7151 of 2016, namely, Mohanbhai Rajabhai Makwana, and
applicant No.4 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19122 of 2015,
namely, Harjibhai Dosabhai Makwana, have expired and,
consequently, the Sessions Case stands abated qua them. In
view of the aforesaid, the present applications also stand abated
qua the said applicants. The said order is taken on record.
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
2. The applicants before this Court have invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash and setting aside the FIR
being C.R. No. I-72 of 2015 registered with Gondal City Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The facts as narrated in the FIR in nutshell are that:
3.1 The complainant Mansukh resides with his father
Devjibhai Naranbhai and his family. It is stated that the
complainant has one brother and one sister who got married and
resides at village Umwada. It is stated that as his father Devji
Naranbhai resides with him and younger brother Ramnikbhai
resides separately with his family.
3.2 It is stated that before 15 years of Panchayat a plot was
given in village Shivrajgadh where Kachha construction was
made and the complainant resides with his family. It is alleged
that before 8 years an idle land near to the house of the
complainant one Mohanbhai Rajabhai Makwana has tried to
make construction and because of the same easementary rights
of the complainant affected. It was also stated that as that as the
plot was not allotted to them and without any proof the
construction is made and therefore dispute made amongst them.
It is stated that they frequently used to administer threat and
used pressure tactics. It is also alleged that cases were also filed
in the court and subsequently since construction is made by
Mohanbhai Rajabhai by Taluka Panchayat office the plot was
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
cancelled and false complaints were filed.
3.3 It is stated that on 23.05.2015, Mohanbhai Rajabhai, his
brother Khodabhai Rajabhai, Manjibhai Kamabhai, Khetabhai as
well Harjibhai Dosabhai Makwana and the wife of Mohanbhai
namely Shantuben, Bhabi of Mohanbhai namely Rudiben and
Manjuben all of them initiated proceedings before Gondal
Taluka. Police Station against the complainant and against his
wife and family members. It is stated that in pursuant to the
complaint all were called before Gondal Taluka Police Station
and chapter cases was filed against them. It is stated that as
because of such harassment the father of the complainant –
Devjibhai Naranbhai Makwana who committed suicide at the
time when the complainant and the family members are at the
police station. It is stated that after they were granted bail in a
chapter case, they went to the hospital and found that their
father passed away and accordingly, the complainant came to
the police station and filed the FIR. It is alleged that since last 8
years the dispute was made with regard to the plot and because
of this harassment he committed suicide.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicants, at
the outset, would submit that in the Sessions Case, charges
have been framed and four witnesses have been examined
despite the stay granted by this Court. It is submitted that the
same has happened under a misconception of law, as interpreted
in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.
and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2024) 6 SCC 307 . However, when the said fact was brought to
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the notice of the learned Trial Court, further proceedings in the
trial were not conducted. It is submitted that, as reflected on the
online website, at one point of time, the matter was shown as
being posted for final arguments; however, upon the same being
brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court, the Court did
not proceed further. Thus, four witnesses came to be examined
during the intervening period.
5. Be that as it may, learned advocate would further submit
that no case is made out under Section 306 of the IPC, as the
entire FIR conspicuously lacks any averments as to the nature of
the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased, which could
have left him with no other option but to commit suicide. It is
submitted that civil litigation was already pending with regard to
the plot in question, wherein construction was raised by the
family of the present applicants. It is further submitted that the
deceased, who was the father of the complainant, committed
suicide at the Zila Panchayat office, where the members of the
complainant's family had been called to the Police Station in
connection with the chapter case lodged by the family of the
present applicants. However, the deceased father of the
complainant was not named in the said chapter case. Under
such circumstances, it is argued that merely lodging a chapter
case cannot be termed as harassment, and therefore, learned
advocate would submit that the present applications may be
allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli would further submit
that the mere averment that all the applicants herein were
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
harassing the deceased cannot be believed, inasmuch as, except
for such a bare statement, even during the course of
investigation, there is not an iota of evidence to rope in the
present applicants or to bring home their complicity in the
alleged crime. It is submitted that the complainant had already
instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 687 of 2006, wherein the
application below Exhibit 5 came to be rejected, and the appeal
preferred against the rejection of Exhibit 5 was also dismissed,
and ultimately, the said civil suit also came to be rejected.
6.1 However, merely because the family of the applicants could
not raise the construction as stipulated in the allotment of the
land in favour of the present applicants, namely, applicant
Mohanbhai and his wife Shantaben, and the permission came to
be cancelled, the same was challenged before the District
Development Officer by way of an appeal under Section 242 of
the Panchayat Act. Thus, it cannot be said that pursuing the
civil or criminal remedies available under law would amount to
unnecessary harassment.
6.2 It is further submitted that several applications were also
preferred by the family of the present complainant with regard to
cancellation of the plot allotted to the present applicants, as well
as the aforesaid civil suit, which ultimately came to be rejected.
Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the ingredients
of Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC are attracted.
7. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth would
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
submit that for the last eight years, the deceased had been
continuously subjected to harassment by the family members of
the applicants with regard to the property in question, and
having no other alternative, the deceased committed suicide at
the Panchayat office. It is submitted that despite making several
representations with regard to the alleged illegality committed by
the applicants and their having raised illegal construction
without obtaining any valid permission, the deceased was left
with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Under such
circumstances, learned advocate would submit that the present
applications may be rejected.
8. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the State would submit
that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have
been framed and four witnesses have been examined, this Court
ought not to entertain the present applications and the
applicants may be relegated to the learned Trial Court to face the
trial. Learned APP, therefore, would submit that the present
applications may be rejected.
9. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
10. The factum of filing of Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of
2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7151 of 2016 was for
extension of the interim relief, on the ground that the learned
Trial Court was insisting upon proceeding with the trial, relying
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited (supra) ,
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
wherein the interim relief, if any, granted earlier was directed to
continue till the next date. The said order was passed on
15.11.2022.
11. The earlier orders are perused. Vide order dated
31.03.2016, it was specifically observed that a request may be
made before the concerned Court not to proceed with the
committal proceedings, and if such request is made, the same
shall be considered in accordance with law. The said interim
arrangement continues to operate till today.
12. The factum of four witnesses having been examined and
cross-examined by the defence is not in dispute. Be that as it
may, this Court has gone through the averments made in the
FIR and has also perused the charge-sheet placed on record
along with the memorandum of the petitions. The averments in
the FIR, as well as the statements recorded during the course of
investigation, would reflect that the allegations levelled against
the applicants are vague and general in nature, mainly alleging
lodging of false FIRs and harassment by the applicants and their
family members.
13. The factum of allotment of the disputed land in question in
favour of Mohanbhai and Shantaben, wife of Mohanbhai, vide
order dated 19.09.2002 by the Taluka Development Officer is not
in dispute. The fact that the said allotment came to be cancelled,
against which an appeal under Section 242 of the Panchayat Act
was preferred, is also not in dispute. The cancellation of the
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
allotment of the land in question appears to be on account of
breach of the conditions of allotment, more particularly, failure
to raise construction within the specified time. The factum of
filing of Regular Civil Suit No. 687 of 2006 , wherein the
application below Exhibit 5 came to be rejected and the appeal
preferred thereafter against the rejection of the Exhibit 5
application was also dismissed, is not in dispute. The rejection of
the said suit is also not in dispute.
14. Lastly, the said suit came to be disposed of on 20.12.2010
vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2010. The appeal preferred
on 07.01.2014 under Section 242 of the Panchayat Act is also
not in dispute. The factum of registration of the chapter case
against the family members, except the deceased, is also not in
dispute.
15. It would also be apt to refer to the judgment in the case of
Abhinav Mohan Delkar v/s. State of Maharashtra and
Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725 wherein it is
held that:
"22. What comes out essentially from the various
decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is
allegation of constant harassment, continued over a
long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306
read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate
prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct
consequence of such continuous harassment, the last
proximate incident having finally driven the subject to
the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, the
straw that broke the camel's back; that final event, in a
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact
resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What
drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on
individual predilections; but whether it is goaded,
definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of
another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because
the victim was continuously harassed and at one
point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking
his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive
instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be
gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the
victim.
16. Tested on the aforesaid principles, when the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration, there is not an iota of
evidence to point out that soon before the death, there was any
instigation, active participation or any overt act attributable to
the present applicants. Even if the applications preferred by the
family of the present applicants and the complainant's family are
taken into consideration, the same cannot be termed as harsh or
severe harassment, unless there is a conscious and deliberate
intention, coupled with mens rea, to drive the other person to
commit suicide.
17. When the applicants are pursuing the remedies available
under law and had also been allotted the land in question by the
competent authority, though the said allotment was
subsequently cancelled, against which an appeal was also
preferred, the same, particularly when the cancellation was on
the technical ground of not raising the construction within the
time-frame stipulated in the allotment letter, cannot by itself
constitute harassment.
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
18. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
construction was raised without any authorization, the same
would not amount to harassment, inasmuch as the
complainant's family had availed the civil remedy by filing a suit,
which ultimately came to be dismissed in the year 2010.

19. Thus, merely alleging that the applicants had pressurized
the deceased cannot, at all times, be sufficient to hold them
responsible, without there being something more to clearly
discern the intention that the deceased would commit suicide.
Such an allegation, by itself, would not fall within the four
corners of Section 107 of the IPC so as to ultimately attract the
penal provisions of Section 306 of the IPC.
20. The alleged incident had occurred at the Panchayat Office,
where the complainant and other family members had been
called by the concerned Police Station in connection with the
chapter case lodged by the family members of the applicants.
Under no stretch of imagination can the act of the applicants, in
such circumstances, be said to amount to instigation to commit
suicide.
21. Even otherwise, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shenbagavalli and Others v. The Inspector of
Police, Kancheepuram District and Another , reported in 2025
Supreme (SC) 753, mens rea cannot be presumed merely
because an act of the applicants may have been highly insulting
to the deceased, even where abusive language was used, so as to
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/7151/2016 (GJHC240549592016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
conclude that such conduct constituted an instigation to commit
suicide. In the present case, there is not even any allegation of
abusive language having been used.
22. Even if the act of the applicants in pursuing the legal
remedies available to them is taken into consideration, the same
cannot be termed as a highly pressurizing tactic or as an act of
pressurizing the deceased by the applicants and, therefore,
would not fall within the four corners of Section 107 of the IPC.
23. There is no evidence of any positive act on the part of the
applicants having any proximity to the time of occurrence, which
could have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Thus,
merely on the allegations of lodging a false FIR and harassment,
in the absence of any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence which compelled the deceased to commit suicide, the
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC cannot be said to be
attracted so as to constitute an offence punishable under Section
306 of the IPC.
24. In the result, the present applications are allowed. The FIR
being C.R. No. I-72 of 2015 registered with Gondal City Police
Station, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
including Sessions Case No. 17 of 2015 pending before the
learned Sessions Court at Gondal, are hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:25:24 IST 2026