DILIPBHAI RAMJIBHAI KACHA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 11284 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI RAMJIBHAI KACHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 01/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant has
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, praying for
quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.
11208002200837/2020 registered with Ajidam Police Station,
Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 387,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as under
Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act.
2. The brief facts of the FIR in nutshell are as follows:
2.1 My name is Ashvinbhai Ramjibhai Makwana, Caste:
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
Suthar, Age: 47 years, Occupation: Carpentry, Residing at:
Street No. 5, Divyajot School Wall Street, Kothariya, Rajkot,
Mobile No. 9160611634, 9804346641.
2.2 I hereby state my complaint's facts as under: I reside with
my family at the above-mentioned address, and my shed is
located at Kothariya Somnath Industry Area, 80 Feet Road,
named "Hindustan Beat", where we four brothers carry out work.
The eldest among us is Pravinbhai, after him Dilipbhai, after him
Nitinbhai, after him Kantibhai, after him Ichhabhai, after him
Bhavinbhai, after him I am, and the youngest is Prafullbhai. My
wife's name is Nitaben, and we have no children. My brother's
son Shrey, aged 11, stays with us, and my wife's name is Kiran,
and he studies up to Class 10 is studying.
2.3 Yesterday, on 20.04.2020, during the afternoon, I, my wife,
my younger brother Prafullbhai and his wife, my elder brother
Kantibhai, and my mother were all sitting together after having
lunch at our home. Later, around 1:30 PM, we went to sleep.
Then around 4:15 PM, when I woke up, my mother mentioned
that Prafullbhai said he was taking the factory key and going to
sit at the factory. However, by around 6:00 PM, Prafullbhai had
not returned home. Therefore, when I went to the factory, my
brother's Honda Shine motorcycle was parked outside, and the
factory's shutter was half-open. So, when I opened the shutter
and looked inside, Prafullbhai had tied a rope to a pipe and
hanged himself.
2.4 Seeing this, I immediately phoned my elder brothers
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
Anilbhai and Pravinbhai. Then I phoned my nephew Keyur
Ghanshyambhai Pitroda and my maternal aunt's son
Jasminbhai Rameshbhai Maj. Jasmin immediately came to the
spot. Jasmin called 100, and someone from the neighbor's
factory named Rameshbhai Krishnarao called 108. After 108
arrived, we brought my brother Prafullbhai down, and the 108
doctor examined Prafullbhai and declared him dead. Afterwards,
the police arrived and carried out the legal procedures.
2.5 During this time, a mobile phone, glasses, a motorcycle
key, and a notebook were found on top of the table inside the
factory. On the first three pages of that notebook, Prafullbhai
had written that 7 to 8 months ago, he had borrowed
Rs.1,00,000/- at 10% interest from Vijaybhai Mir, residing in
Khodiyarnagar. For that Rs.1,00,000/-, Vijaybhai Mir had
recovered Rs.2,50,000/- as interest. Furthermore, this Vijaybhai
Mir was recovering Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month as
interest, and he physically assaulted Prafullbhai multiple times
regarding money. He had also forcefully taken away my brother's
Activa motorcycle. My brother's brother-in-law (wife's brother),
Dilipbhai Parmar, is a witness to this writing.
2.6 When I inquired with my brother-in-law Dilipbhai Amrutlal
Parmar about this matter, he stated that around a year ago,
Vijaybhai Mir had lent Rs.1,00,000/- to Prafullbhai at 10%
interest in his presence, and Prafullbhai had agreed to pay
monthly interest to Vijaybhai Mir. Till date, Prafullbhai had paid
Rs.4,50,000/- including interest to Vijaybhai Mir; despite this,
Vijaybhai Mir demanded more money and harassed Prafullbhai.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
2.7 Dilipbhai also stated that my brother Prafullbhai had taken
Rs.5,00,000/- at 3% interest around 6 years ago from
Govindbhai Savjibhai Savaliya, residing near Doshi Hospital,
Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot. Till date, Prafullbhai had paid
Rs.9,00,000/- including interest to Govindbhai. Despite this,
Govindbhai Savaliya kept demanding more money. About 4
months ago, when my brother Anilbhai was going to work at
Govindbhai Savaliya's factory riding his Activa motorcycle (No.
GJ-03-LE-3924), Govindbhai Savaliya told my brother, "Give me
my money and interest, or I won't let any of you live and will kill
you." Saying this, he forcibly took away Anilbhai's Activa and
kept it. That Activa motorcycle is still with Govindbhai.
2.8 Additionally, Prafullbhai had taken Rs.4,00,000/- at 5%
interest around 5 years ago from a person named Dilipbhai
Kacha. Although Prafullbhai had already paid Rs.7,00,000/-
including interest against that Rs.4,00,000/-, Dilipbhai Kacha
continued demanding more money.
2.9 Due to the harassment from all three above-mentioned
persons, my brother hanged himself and committed suicide.
Thus, the above-mentioned:
1. Vijaybhai Mir
2. Govindbhai Savjibhai Savaliya
3. Dilipbhai Kacha
2.10 All three residing in Rajkot, despite having received the
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
principal amount along with interest from my brother
Prafullbhai, kept demanding more money. Govindbhai Savaliya
physically assaulted my brother multiple times, and forcibly
snatched away my brother Anilbhai's Activa motorcycle,
harassing and mentally torturing my brother. Fed up with the
harassment from these people, my brother was forced to commit
suicide by hanging himself.
2.11 This is my complaint for taking legal action against them.
All the facts stated above are true and correct as per my
narration.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the applicant
submits that even if the averments made in the FIR are taken
into consideration in their entirety, the same would not amount
to abetment so as to attract the penal provision contained in
Section 306 of the IPC. It is submitted that the impugned FIR is
conspicuously silent with regard to any act of abetment as
defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
3.1 Learned advocate further submits that respondent No.2–
complainant has not approached this Court with clean hands
and has suppressed the material fact regarding the complaint
filed by the present applicant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, being Criminal Case No. 2869
of 2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rajkot, against the complainant and his family members,
including the deceased.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
3.2 Learned advocate would further submit that the
complainant has also suppressed the fact that an agreement was
executed between the complainant, his family members and the
applicant with regard to the monetary transaction, wherein it
was specifically stated that the amount was lent without
charging any interest. It is, therefore, submitted that the
provisions of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act would not be
attracted.
3.3 Learned advocate further submits that there is no
averment in the FIR remotely suggesting that any act of extortion
was committed at the instance of or at the behest of the
applicant so as to attract the provisions of Section 387 of the
IPC. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may be
allowed.
3.4 Learned advocate would further submit that continuation
of the impugned proceedings would amount to nothing but an
abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the impugned FIR
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. M.S. Padaliya appearing
for the original complainant–respondent No.2 would submit that
the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court
and that he has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed and
set aside qua the present applicant.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt appearing
for the State would submit that serious allegations have been
levelled in the FIR, which do not warrant quashing of the same.
It is further submitted that, having regard to the serious nature
of the allegations under Sections 306 and 387 of the IPC, the
proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a
compromise between the parties. Under the circumstances,
learned APP has urged that the present application may be
rejected.
6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.
7. This Court has gone through the FIR as well as the
documents appended to the application. The averments made in
the FIR are primarily based on the notebook which was found
lying on the table in the workshop of the deceased, wherein, inter
alia , the following allegations have been made against the
present applicant. It is alleged that Prafulbhai had borrowed a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from Dilipbhai Kacha at an interest rate of
5%, which amount was repaid along with interest, totalling
Rs.7,00,000/-. It is further alleged that despite such repayment,
the present applicant continued to demand money and that,
owing to such harassment, the deceased committed suicide.
Except for the aforesaid allegation, there is nothing either in the
suicide note or in the FIR against the present applicant.
8. However, if the uncontroverted documents relied upon by
the learned advocate for the applicant are taken into
consideration, it appears that a notarized agreement executed
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
between the present applicant and the family members of the
deceased, including the complainant, was signed by the
concerned parties. As per the said agreement, a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- was handed over by the present applicant on
06.08.2014, which was to be returned within a period of six
months, i.e. on or before 31.01.2015. The agreement further
specifically records that no interest was payable on the said
amount. It appears that the amount was handed over in view of
the relationship between the parties.
9. It further appears that a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
was issued in favour of the present applicant, which came to be
dishonoured, pursuant to which a statutory notice was issued
and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, was also lodged against the partnership
firm, namely, Pragati Industries, and Dilipbhai Makwana,
Prafulbhai Makwana, Ashwinbhai Makwana, Kantibhai
Makwana and Anilbhai Makwana.
9.1 At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirubhai Nanjibhai
Patel Notwala v. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 270, wherein it has been held that a creditor
making repeated phone calls and persistently demanding
repayment of money lent does not, by itself, constitute the
offence of abetment of suicide. It has further been held that, in
the absence of evidence showing that the deceased was beaten or
physically assaulted, a mere demand for repayment of dues
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
cannot be construed as abetment of suicide.
10. Considering the aforesaid principles of law, it is also not in
dispute that the deceased had borrowed amounts from other
persons, against whom serious allegations have been levelled.
However, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, there is
no specific role attributed to him. Merely because it is stated in
the notebook found lying on the table in the workshop of the
deceased that the deceased was being harassed by the present
applicant in connection with the demand for repayment of
money, the same, by itself, would not constitute abetment of
suicide.
11. There are also no allegations that the deceased was put in
fear of death or grievous hurt with the intention of committing
extortion, so as to attract the provisions of Section 387 of the
Indian Penal Code. Likewise, there are no allegations against the
present applicant which would attract Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, namely, threatening the deceased with injury with
the intent to cause alarm, so as to constitute criminal
intimidation.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ingredients necessary
to attract the provisions of Sections 306, 387 and 506(2) of the
Indian Penal Code are not made out against the present
applicant. As regards Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat
Money-Lenders Act, the very existence and execution of the
agreement is not disputed by the complainant. The documents
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/11284/2020 (GJHC240326352020) JUDGMENT DATED:
01/09/2026
on record indicate that the amount was lent without stipulation
of any interest. Further, the fact that the present applicant had
lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against the concerned persons also assumes
significance.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the
present applicant, in the absence of the necessary ingredients of
the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of
law.
14. In the result, the present application is allowed. The FIR
being C.R. No. 11208002200837/2020 registered with Ajidam
Police Station, Rajkot, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 13:39:31 IST 2026