Uttarakhand High Court Quashes FIR Against Gupta Brothers in Builder's Suicide Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Ajay Kumar Gupta, one of the three South Africa-returned Gupta brothers, and his brother-in-law Anil Kumar Gupta. This case is connected to the tragic suicide of prominent Dehradun-based builder Satinder Singh Sawhney in May 2024.
Background of the Case
Satinder Singh Sawhney allegedly ended his life by jumping from the terrace of a seven-storey apartment complex where his daughter resided. Before his death, he left a suicide note naming Ajay Kumar Gupta and Anil Kumar Gupta. In the note, Sawhney accused the brothers of pressuring him to hand over two residential projects worth more than Rs 1,000 crore that he was developing at the time.
Police investigations revealed that Sawhney had entered into a partnership with the Guptas for these projects, with an agreement that they would not interfere in his operations. However, Sawhney's family alleged that the brothers later began harassing him to transfer the projects to their names. Additionally, they got a case registered against him in Saharanpur on charges of fraud and blackmail.
Legal Charges and Investigation
Following Sawhney's death, his son filed a complaint leading to charges against the Guptas under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 306: Abetment of suicide
- Section 385: Extortion
- Section 420: Cheating
- Section 120-B: Criminal conspiracy
In November last year, the police filed a final report in the case, stating that investigators found insufficient evidence to support the allegations. They recommended the closure of the case, noting that the suicide note had been sent for forensic examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) could not reach a conclusive opinion on its authorship due to anomalies, and efforts to obtain comparative handwriting samples from Sawhney's son did not materialize.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
During the court proceedings, the counsel for the Guptas argued that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not amount to incitement or abetment to suicide. He emphasized that the FIR and the material collected during the investigation did not disclose any direct or active role by the applicants that could have driven the deceased to suicide.
Opposing the plea, the government counsel contended that the FIR contained serious allegations warranting a full judicial examination. He argued that the FSL's inability to give a definitive opinion did not render the suicide note irrelevant, and its evidentiary value should be assessed during a trial.
High Court's Decision
The single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani, after seeking clarification from the investigating officer on multiple occasions regarding the forensic findings, noted that no definitive forensic linkage between the handwriting in the suicide note and that of the deceased could be established. Quashing the FIR on Monday, the court held that the allegations, material on record, and circumstances did not, even prima facie, disclose offences under the IPC sections cited.
The court observed, "Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law," adding that "mere allegations of harassment, discord, or strained relations, without something more, cannot constitute abetment to suicide." This decision underscores the legal principle that criminal charges require substantial evidence beyond mere allegations to proceed.
The ruling brings a significant development in this high-profile case, highlighting the importance of forensic evidence and thorough investigation in judicial processes. It also reflects the court's stance on preventing misuse of legal mechanisms in the absence of concrete proof.
