Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437
1 MCRC-7032-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7032 of 2025
NARENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Singh Parmar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Virendra Singh Pal - Advocate for the complaint.
ORDER
The present application, under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the applicant - Narendra Sharma for quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.126/2024 registered at Police Station Uteela, District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, as well as all judicial proceedings arising therefrom.
As per prosecution story, on 06.10.2024 the body of the missing person registered as Missing No.13/24 -- Ashok Pathak, son of Lakshminarayan Pathak, resident of Uteela -- was recovered from the field of Radha Krishna Gaud, Uteela, hanging from a large neem tree, apparently showing him to have committed suicide. An inquest report (Marg) No.16/24 under Section 194 BNSS was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation, which was carried out by the police.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 2 MCRC-7032-2025 During the investigation, on 11.10.2024 the deceased's cousin Chhotu Pathak (son of Premnarayan Pathak) presented a suicide note that he had taken from the deceased Ashok Pathak's grocery shop. The said suicide note was thereafter forwarded for forensic examination as a questioned document/handwritten document to the State Examiner, [questioned documents section], Nahangirabad, Bhopal. The contents of that suicide note are as follows:
"Anil Parashar and I both had told them to close the account but they did not heed either of us. Pawan Sharma, Ashish Kapoor (the ones who arranged the 'quotation') did the same thing with my maternal uncle's son Anin as well. In the fraud, Ashok Pathak and Pawan Sharma -- his associate Ashish Kapoor and Pawan Sharma -- put the quotation; because of that I am ending my life by hanging myself, since they have cheated me out of my money. I took a loan of ₹9,85,000 from Central Bank of India, Uteela branch, and they (Pawan) put the quotation in the name of Ayusi (?). I got ₹10,99,400 disbursed. Even after a month they neither provided the machine nor returned my money. I told them I was closing the loan and to return my money. They kept saying yes, yes, but they did not get my loan closed and they ate up my money. Because of them I have an outstanding bank loan of about ₹10 lakh which I cannot repay. Therefore the strictest possible action should be taken against them.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437
3 MCRC-7032-2025 Pawan Sharma twice deceitfully got me to sign papers under the pretext of filing forms -- they hid what was written on those papers and I was misled into signing them. Along with them, Narendra Sharma Halwai Bahagi and Kamlesh Jatav Murar also took ₹3,00,000 from me and did not return my money. Sanjay Baghel (son of Jagdish, Uteela) also cheated me of ₹30,000. Narendra, Kamlesh, and Sanjay owe amounts dating from 2018. Because of all these people I have fallen into debt and today I am committing suicide."
On the basis of the suicide note, offences were alleged against Bachan Sharma, Ashish Kapoor, Narendra Sharma (applicant), Kamlesh Jatav, and Sanjay, under Sections 108 and 3(5) BNSS; the offences have been registered and the matter is under investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before this Court that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed, as they are based on false, fabricated and concocted allegations. The sole basis of the prosecution case is an alleged suicide note purportedly left behind by the deceased. The only reference therein to the applicant is that "Narendra Sharma Halwai had taken ₹3,00,000 on credit from me and had not returned the money." Beyond this, there is no allegation of harassment, instigation, cruelty, or abetment against the applicant. The deceased has not imputed any role to the applicant suggesting that he was driven to commit suicide by the applicant's conduct.
It is further submitted that even if the allegations in the suicide note Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 4 MCRC-7032-2025 are taken at their face value, they do not attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 306 IPC). A mere monetary dispute or grievance does not amount to instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid to commit suicide.
While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of M. Arjunan v. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, it was submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are: (i) abetment of the commission of suicide, and (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased. Absence of a positive act of instigation, conviction cannot be sustained.
While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, it was submitted that mere harassment by itself would not constitute abetment; there must be direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide.
While placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, it was submitted that "instigation" denotes urging or provoking to do a drastic act, and unless the accused continuously provoked the deceased until he was left with no option, conviction Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) cannot be sustained. Personal distress of the deceased cannot be equated with instigation in law. Further, in the matter of Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Apex Court has clarified that unless the accused has played an active role either by instigating or facilitating the suicide, the offence Section 108 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 5 MCRC-7032-2025 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) is not attracted. Further, in the matter Smt. Radha v. State of M.P., 2008 ILR (M.P.) 3333, this Court has held that abetment requires an active role, either by way of instigation or intentional aid and merely mentioning the name of a creditor in a suicide note due to non-payment of dues cannot amount to instigation for suicide.
It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant, at best, suggest a financial transaction where the deceased felt aggrieved due to non- payment of money and there is no material to show that the applicant ever provoked, incited, conspired, or intentionally aided the deceased in taking the extreme step and in absence of mens rea or a positive act of instigation, the penal provisions of Section 108 BNS cannot be invoked. The offence lies in intentional provocation or active participation leading to the suicide. There must be cogent evidence of persistent cruelty, harassment, or conduct that contributed to the suicide. Where the deceased, owing to psychological weakness, illness, sensitivity, or subjective feelings, commits suicide, the accused cannot be held liable for the same. The impugned FIR and proceedings, therefore, disclose no offence against the applicant. Their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.
In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the alleged FIR along with all consequential judicial proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 6 MCRC-7032-2025 application and prayed for its rejection by contending that the impugned FIR is registered under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) against the applicant following the suicide of the deceased, Ashok Pathak, and prima facie discloses an offence. While taking this Court through the suicide note wherein in specific terms, the deceased had mentioned the names of present applicant to have indulged in certain acts, which had caused the deceased mental and physical harassment; thus, it was submitted that the act of present applicant can be said to be of instigation, which had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. It was thus prayed that the present petition be dismissed. In support of submissions of counsel for the complainant, reliance was placed on the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by this Court in the matter of Smt. Girja Devi & Others vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in M.Cr.C.No.54358 of 2024.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 BNSS) is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The only reference to the applicant in the suicide note is regarding a financial transaction, the deceased alleges that he had advanced ₹3,00,000 to the applicant, which was not returned. Nowhere, in the note does the deceased allege that the applicant engaged in harassment, cruelty, instigation, or any act intending to drive him to commit suicide. Section 108 BNSS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) prescribes criminal liability for abetment of suicide, which requires active Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 7 MCRC-7032-2025 instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in causing the suicide; and mens rea, i.e., the accused must intend to aid or instigate the suicidal act. Mere financial disputes or grievances, without any element of provocation or harassment, do not attract the provisions of Section 108 BNSS.
To bring home the charge of abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish a positive act of instigation, provocation or intentional aid by the accused; and the requisite mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, discord, or strained relations, howsoever unpleasant, cannot constitute instigation in law.
The Apex Court in M. Arjunan v. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, has consistently held that unless there is evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement or active aid, the provisions of Section 306 IPC are not attracted.
In the matter of Smt. Radha v. State of M.P., 2008 ILR (M.P.) 3333, this Court has held that mere mention of a creditor in a suicide note due to non-payment does not amount to abetment.
In the present case, the allegations against the applicant are restricted to a financial grievance, and there is no material evidence of instigation, provocation, or harassment causing the deceased to commit suicide. The continuation of the FIR and judicial proceedings against the applicant thus, would amount to abuse of the process of law and harassment without any legal justification.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 8 MCRC-7032-2025 There is no material to indicate that either applicant had at any point of time instigated, provoked, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The so-called suicide note, though it names the applicant, is bereft of any specific act amounting to incitement. A mere naming of individuals, without narrating any proximate act of instigation or compelling circumstances created by them, cannot, by itself, attract the rigors of Section Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC.
The prosecution material falls short of demonstrating any proximate or live link between the alleged conduct of the applicants and the extreme step taken by the deceased. The subjective state of mind of the deceased, however unfortunate, cannot be substituted for the legal requirement of "instigation" or "intentional aid" attributable to the accused.
The reliance placed by the counsel for the complainant on the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by this Court in Smt. Girja Devi & Ors. v. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.54358/2024) is misplaced. In that case, this Court found that there were specific and direct allegations of harassment against the applicants therein, and the same were corroborated by the statements of the father, mother, and brother of the deceased. It was in that backdrop that the applications were dismissed.
Herein case, the factual scenario is entirely different, as against the present applicant, there is no allegation of instigation or active conduct; the only reference is to a financial transaction where repayment was not made. Hence, the ratio of Girja Devi (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22437 9 MCRC-7032-2025 Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in alleged FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom insofar as they relate to applicant do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS.
Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) is allowed. The impugned FIR No.126/2024 together with all subsequent proceedings stand quashed qua the present applicant.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 9/20/2025 1:13:18 PM