VALIBHAI KASAMBHAI JUNEJA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 18577 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
VALIBHAI KASAMBHAI JUNEJA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR MK POOJARA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 02/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (the Code) is preferred by the applicant praying to
quash the FIR being C.R. No. I-41 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017, lodged
before Dhrangadhra City Police Station, Dist.: Surendranagar for
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that
original accused No. 1 namely Sohil Karimbhai Juneja wanted to
marry with the deceased daughter of the de facto complainant and
when the de facto complainant denied such a proposal as their
castes were different, the accused persons got excited and in the
aid and abetment of each other, threatened the family members of
the de facto complainant to kill. The accused No. 1 also harassed
the deceased, whereas, the present applicants used to pressurize
the complainant side for marriage. Fed up with that, deceased
committed suicide on 27.06.2017 by strangulation. On the said
facts, the FIR in question came to be registered.
3. Heard, learned advocate for the applicants – accused, the
learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No. 1 – State.
3.1 The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned
advocate for the applicants is that the ingredients of the offences
alleged against the present applicants, more particularly, the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, are not at all
satisfied, even the FIR is read as it is.
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
3.2 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that
the material allegation against the present applicants, who are the
mother and the uncle of the original accused No. 1, are to the effect
that the deceased and her family members were being threatened
to kill by the accused persons if they did not marry the deceased
daughter of the de facto complainant with the original accused No.
1 and they were also exerting pressure on them. It is submitted
that the main accused i.e. original accused No. 1 namely Sohil
Karimbhai Juneja is acquitted by the trial Court after full-fledged
trial in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2017 by judgment and order dated
rd
04.10.2025 passed by the learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhrangadhra, District: Surendranagar by giving benefit of doubt,
copy of which is made available for perusal of the Court, which is
taken on record, and thus, it is submitted that when main accused
is acquitted, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
present applicants, who have virtually no role to play in the
alleged offence, would be an exercise in futility and abuse of
process of law.
3.3 The learned advocate for the applicants would further
submit that the allegations levelled against the present applicants
in the FIR and the role allegedly played by them are taken into
consideration in entirety, while no ingredients of offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC are satisfied as there is no prior
proximate overt act by the applicants herein instigating the
deceased to take such extreme step nor the applicants engaged in
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
any conspiracy or illegal omission which took place in pursuance
of that conspiracy nor have they intentionally aided, by any act or
illegal omission, leaving no other option but to commit suicide by
the deceased, the ingredients of other offences alleged are also not
satisfied and the case clearly falls within the parameters laid down
in the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC
604].
3.4 The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that in
fact, this is a case of love affair where, the family members of the
deceased were not agreeable to the marriage of the deceased with
the original accused No. 1, who is already acquitted by the trial
Court in a sessions case, as their castes were different and hence,
the deceased committed suicide and thus, with a view to wreck
vengeance, present FIR is filed.
3.5 Making such submissions, it is urged that the present FIR
and the consequential proceedings qua the applicants may be
quashed and set aside as no prima facie case is made out against the
present applicants.
4. Conversely , the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de
facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State would submit that from a perusal of the FIR it would be
clearly revealed that the deceased was under tremendous pressure
because of the threats being administered to her for getting
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
married with the original accused No. 1 and the present applicants
played active role in the offence crime in question and thus,
merely because the original accused No. 1 has been acquitted by
the trial Court, case against the present applicants cannot be given
a go-bye and it is ultimately, a matter of trial whether threats were
administered by them or not and/or actual role played by them in
commission of the crime.
4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the
learned advocate for the de facto complainant would further submit
that as per the settled law of the land, inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with a view
to curb the abuse of process of law. It is submitted that in the case
on hand, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and
hence, they requested that it is ultimately a matter of trial after
which, the truth could be churned out and hence, it is requested
not to entertain this application and it is reiterated to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
6. Prior to assessing the factual matrix on the touchstone of
criminal jurisprudence, it is apposite to reinforce the settled legal
position governing the scope, ambit, and limits of the inherent
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code. The
jurisprudential parameters regulating the exercise of this
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
extraordinary power have been authoritatively catalogued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of precedents, chief among
them being the authoritative in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] . Therein, Hon’ble Supreme Court
crystallized seven distinct, illustrative categories of cases where
judicial intervention under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226
of the Constitution is necessitated to secure the ends of justice and
clip any abuse of the process of Court. The relevant portion of
Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted below:
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
6.1 Evaluating the present application on the anvil of the
principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra) , this Court has to
determine whether the allegations in the FIR, even when accepted
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
at face value, satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of offence
alleged against the applicants. This Court must ensure that
criminal machinery is not permitted to degenerate into an engine
of harassment where liability under criminal law is completely
absent.
6.2 The applicants have sought quashment of the said FIR on the
ground that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR against the
present applicants are taken as it is, no ingredients of the offence
alleged against them are satisfied.
6.3 Accordingly, the Court again perused the FIR. It is alleged
in the FIR, impugned herein, so far as the present applicants are
concerned, that present applicants namely Rahmatben and
Valibhai, who are the mother and the uncle of the original accused
No. 1 namely Sohil, respectively, were pressurizing the de facto
complainant for solemnizing marriage of his daughter with said
Sohil – original accused No. 1 and if they would not do so, they
would kill them and would not allow the family members to stay
peacefully and on account of such harassment, the daughter of the
de facto complainant committed suicide. Except above, there is
nothing on record to point out as to when and what exact words
and/or any overt act having been committed by the present
applicants.
6.4 At this juncture, if the decision of the Apex Court in Abhinav
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2026) 6 SCC
233 : 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75740 is referred to, it is held in paragraphs
25, 26, and 27 as under:
“25. 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 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 .
26. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative
or option, but to take his life, because of what another
person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens
rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What
constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the
alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or
words and the attendant circumstances, which in all
probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of
the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least
possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the
thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of
the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea
would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the
community setting, the relationship between the parties and
other myriad factors would distinguish one case from
another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive
another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of
abetment under Section 306 .
27. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill
yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful
conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to
charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no
uniformity in how different individuals respond and react
under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few
runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the
extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure
imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times,
without something more to clearly discern an intention,
would not be the proper application of the penal provisions
under Section 306. ”
(emphasis supplied)
6.5 Thus, assuming for a moment that the present applicants
were pressuring the de facto complainant for marriage of his
daughter, now deceased, with the original accused No. 1 and upon
denial by the de facto complainant as their castes were different, he
and family members were threatened, then too, there is no
proximate prior act to hold the applicants liable for the suicide of
the deceased being direct consequence of such continuous
harassment by the applicants coupled with the fact that last
proximate incident having no nexus with the suicide committed by
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the deceased and merely because the deceased and the family
members were continuously harassed and at one point, she
succumbed to the extreme act of taking her life, cannot, by itself,
result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment under
Section 107 IPC. Thus, there cannot be any mens rea based on what
was perceived by the deceased which went into his mind while
committing suicide, though the victim might have thought that
ending his life would be the only option to come to end from the
pressure which she was facing, cannot lead to hold that the
applicants were having mens rea and resultantly, amounting to
abetment, since, to constitute mens rea intention and purpose of the
applicants from their act has to come on record and also
considering the attendant circumstances, which in all probability
could lead to such an extreme step of committing suicide by the
deceased, in absence of any material on record, asking the
applicants to face the trial would amount to abuse of process of
law inasmuch as the FIR is silent on these aspects.
6.6 So far as Section 506(2) IPC is concerned, it is trite that the
prosecution must prove: “ (i) that the accused threatened some person;
(ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or
property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he
was interested; and (iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that
person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally
bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a
means of avoiding the execution of such threat”.” A plain reading of
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients
as noticed above. Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part
of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal
intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused
had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. In the instant
case, there is nothing on record to show that the applicants cause
alarm to the complainant so as to attract the provision of this
offence.
6.7 Further, as the ingredients of the substantive offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 506(2) of the IPC are not
satisfied as referred to herein above, Section 114 IPC would not
apply.
6.8 At this juncture, the Court cannot lose sight and to reiterate
the fact that original accused No. 1 has been acquitted by the trial
Court after full-fledged trial by giving benefit of doubt, who, in the
opinion of the Court, had a graver role in the alleged offence than
the present applicants. In the circumstances, present application
deserves favourable consideration.
7. As a sequitur to the above discussion, this application
succeeds and is hereby allowed. FIR being C.R. No. I-41 of 2017
dated 28.06.2017, lodged before Dhrangadhra City Police Station,
Dist.: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections
306, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with all
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18577/2017 (GJHC240624902017) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are
quashed and set aside qua the present applicants only.
7.1 Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/22tss2926
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 19:59:18 IST 2026