In a noteworthy ruling, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed an FIR filed against a lawyer involved in a matrimonial dispute. Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, who heard the case, found that the allegations in the FIR did not meet the criteria for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a deceased husband, referred to as "P," and his wife, "S." After seven years of marriage and two children, the wife left the matrimonial home due to alleged ongoing harassment by her husband. She sought maintenance through Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act.
Unable to meet the court-ordered maintenance payments, the husband reportedly borrowed money. An FIR, registered as C.R. No.1-11/2019 with the 'B' Division Police Station in Rajkot City, accused the lawyer, identified as the third party, and the wife of demanding a lump-sum payment of Rs. 7,00,000 for a settlement. The FIR claimed that the pressure from this demand led the husband to consume poison, resulting in his death during treatment.
Legal Issues:
The central legal question was whether the lawyer's actions, specifically her advice to her client, amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. Other sections considered included 504 (intentional insult) and 114 (abetment).
Court's Observations and Decision:
Justice Joshi emphasized the necessity of a direct connection between the accused’s actions and the suicide. The court found that the lawyer’s role in advising her client did not constitute instigation or abetment. Simply providing legal counsel as part of professional duties does not equate to instigating or encouraging suicide.
Citing precedents such as the Supreme Court's decisions in Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan and S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Justice Joshi underscored that for an abetment charge to be valid under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intentional aid or instigation.
Additionally, the deceased’s dying declaration did not implicate the lawyer or assign any blame to her for his actions.
In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court determined that the FIR and the subsequent legal proceedings against the lawyer were an abuse of the legal process and consequently quashed both the FIR and the criminal case.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
