Gujarat High Court Quashes Abetment Of Suicide FIR Against Lawyer Engaged By Wife To Pursue Matrimonial Case Against Husband

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR registered against a female lawyer engaged by a woman to pursue matrimonial case against her husband. The Court also granted relief to the wife and her mother, booked for abetting her husband's suicide.

Observing that there was no intention attributable to the three women, a  single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi said,

“the accused no.1 is mother-in-law, the accused no.2 is wife of the deceased, whereas the accused no.3 is an advocate by profession, who is taking care of legal remedy of the accused no.2. However bare perusal of the contents of the FIR coupled with the documents produced on record by learned advocates for the applicants, it cannot be said that there was any intention on their part to abet the commission of suicide to the deceased and therefore no mens rea can be attributed". 

Justice Joshi further opined that since the very element of abetment was "missing from the allegations" in the FIR, then in such a case the offence of IPC Section 306 would not be attracted. Section 306 IPC pertains to abetment of suicide, punishable by imprisonment which extend to ten years and fine. 

Facts as per FIR

The FIR stated that the man and his wife got married in 2012 as per Hindu rites and had two children. Subsequently the wife left her matrimonial house and, thereafter, filed an application for maintenance. In the proceedings for maintenance, the concerned court directed the deceased husband to pay Rs. 7000/- however the deceased was unable to pay this amount and had borrowed money for the same. It was alleged that the for settling the matter, Rs. 7 lakh were demanded from the deceased and he was also threatened.

It was further alleged that the deceased husband left his house saying that he is going to settle the issue and bring his wife and daughter home, but he allegedly consumed poisonous substances and tried to commit suicide at the parental house of his wife. He was taken to the hospital where during the course of treatment, he died. 

Contentions

The three women submitted that none of the elements of Section 306 were made out. The female lawyer additionally said that she is a practicing advocate in Rajkot and Jamnagar districts since 1990 and whatever she had done was while "discharge of her duty" as part of her profession of advocacy, as she was engaged by the wife to support her in legal proceedings arising out of the matrimonial disputes between the parties. She said that the it was not the prosecution's case that she had acted in a illegal manner.

The lawyer said that "legitimate proceedings were instituted by the wife against her husband" wherein after considering and appreciating the material available on record, an order of maintenance was passed in the wife's favour by the competent court, which was upheld by the appellate court subsequently.

The wife and her mother said that since there was a matrimonial dispute going on between the couple, and so they had  approached the concerned court under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance. But for that the offences alleged in the FIR including abetment of suicide wont be attracted. 

Meanwhile the prosecution argued that the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out as there were statements of the witnesses recorded by police. It was submitted the contents of the FIR clearly shows that there was constant mental and physical torture at the hands of the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide. 

Decision

After reviewing the arguments, the court concluded that the allegations in the FIR, even if fully accepted, did not constitute the alleged offence.

In coming to its decision, the high court said, "Not only that, the wife instituted two different applications i.e. one under the Domestic Violence Act and second under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance but during interregnum period, settlement was arrived at between the parties and based on the said settlement, the matters have been withdrawn. Even an agreement of settlement has been executed by and between the parties mentioning the terms and conditions and then, the wife started residing with the husband but thereafter also, mental and physical harassment was continuously meted out upon the wife by the husband and due to constant mental and physical torture, the wife has not left with any other option except leaving her matrimonial house along with minor daughter".

The court noted that in order to survive, the wife sought payment of maintenance as ordered by the court concerned, which the husband "was not in a position to pay and efforts were being made by him to bring the wife back but because of past conduct, the wife refused to go back at her matrimonial home".

Noting that this was a clear case of matrimonial dispute, the high court said, "And one fine morning, the husband reached to the house of the wife and request was made to accompany the deceased but it was denied and at that point of time, the husband consumed poisonous substance carried along with him and committed suicide, however, the wife took him to hospital for the purpose of getting treatment but during treatment, he died. All above facts clearly goes on to show that it was a matrimonial dispute but there was no instigation or abetment for suicide". 

Taking note of the contentions of the female lawyer's plea, the high court said that while the lawyer was discharging her duty by providing legal recourse to the wife, at no point of time she came across with the deceased–husband except in the court premises, where the litigations were going on. Hence, it cannot be said that there was instigation and/or abetment for suicide by the said applicant, the high court added. 

With respect to the plea filed by the wife and her mother the court noted that brother of the deceased lodged the FIR "despite the fact that the deceased was alive for two days and was under treatment at hospital". Not only that, the high court observed, the deceased husband's dying declaration was also recorded which was "silent" on any "instigation and/or abetment for suicide" ruling out the possibility of implication of the two women. 

Referring to the components of IPC Section 107 (abetment of a thing) the court said that, "In the present case, taking the contents of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the applicants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the applicants can amount to instigation to commit suicide". 

Allowing the plea, the high court said that if the allegations in the FIR is taken on "face value and accepted in their entirety" would not constitute the offences alleged therein. Terming the FIR as a sheer abuse of process of law, the high court went on to quash the same as well as the pending proceedings before the magisterial court. 

Case Title - X & Ors. Versus Na

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 105

Click Here To Download The Judgment