Bombay High Court
Arun Nivrutti Shenkar And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 April, 2026
1 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
32 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2024
Arun Nivrutti Shenkar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
...
Mr. Sartaj H. Pathan h/f Mr. Vinod Y. Bhide - Advocate for Applicants
Mr. R. D. Raut - APP for the State
...
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 27TH APRIL, 2026
PER COURT : -
1. By this Application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the Applicants seek the following reliefs:
"B'. be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR 0122/2022 dated
26/03/2022 registered with the Akole Police Station,
Akole, Tal- Akole, Dist- Ahmednagar against all the
Applicants herein for the offences punishable u/s 306, 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860;
C. be pleased to quash and set aside the consequential
criminal proceeding Sessions Case No. 05/2023 arising out
of the same FIR pending on the file of Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge, Sangamner against all the Applicants;
C1. Be pleased to quash and set aside the summons / issue
process Order dated 23.08.2022 against the present
applicants passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Akole in RCC No. 195/2022;"
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the
learned APP for the State. None for Respondent No. 2, though served.
With the assistance of both the sides, perused the papers on record.
2 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the aforesaid crime has
been registered on the report lodged by the father of the deceased,
Chaitanya. The informant and the applicants have been residing in close
proximity since 2017. The deceased and the daughter of Applicant Nos.
1 and 2 were known to each other and were in a love relationship. The
deceased wanted to marry her, and the family members of the deceased
were ready for the said marriage. However, the applicants were not
willing for the same. The applicants, from time to time, used to ask the
deceased to sever his relationship with the daughter of Applicant Nos. 1
and 2, failing which he would be killed. However, the deceased
continued to make phone calls to the girl. Eventually, due to the said
threats from the applicants, the deceased committed suicide by hanging
himself in his own house. The matter was reported to the police, and
accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to be registered.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicants
that, even if the prosecution's case is accepted as it is, there is no
material to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. The statement of the girl goes to show that, she did
not want to marry the deceased and that they were merely friends. The
suicide note seized during the course of the investigation does not make
out the offence of abetment of suicide. Asking the applicants to face
trial on the basis of the prosecution's case would amount to abuse of the
3 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
process of law and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. In
support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments in Laxmi Das
Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 706 of
2017, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 21 st January,
2025, Yadwinder Singh @Sunny Versus State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal
Appeal No. ...... of 2025 (@ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 7309 of 2025), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court 27 th October,
2025 and Geo Varghese Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal
Appeal No. 1164 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4512 of 2019)
decided on 5th October, 2021.
5. It is submitted by the learned APP that, the FIR and the
suicide note show that, due to the threats extended by the Applicants,
the Deceased committed suicide. It was revealed during the course of
the investigation that, there were several phone calls between the
deceased and Applicant No. 4, Ganesh Nehe, who is the maternal uncle
of the girl, as well as phone calls between the deceased and the girl. The
phone call details were awaited. The applicants have an effective
remedy before the learned Trial Court for seeking discharge. The
application, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
6. The Charge-sheet is filed for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC, which reads thus:
4 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
Section 306 - Abetment of suicide-If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
6.1. Section 107 of the IPC reads thus:
Section 107 - Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
7. In Laxmi Das (supra), the appeal was preferred against an
order quashing the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution case was that, there was a love affair between the deceased,
Souma Pal, and Accused No. 1 (Babu Das). The deceased committed
suicide on 03.07.2008, and the FIR for abetment of suicide was lodged.
It was the prosecution's case that, the deceased's family was unhappy
with the said relationship and wanted her to concentrate on her studies.
On account of this, they requested Babu Das and the other accused
persons to help them in ending the relationship, however, the accused
persons refused to cooperate. Thereafter, the proceedings came to be
initiated and a charge-sheet was filed. The relevant paragraphs from the
said judgment are reproduced below: -
7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:
"306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide,
5 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines
'Abetment'; and it reads as below:
"107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing,
who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that
there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity
to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet
the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgement in
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another1,
wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together
and observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be
either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to
'doing of a thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section
306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person
to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to
encourage Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701 the person to commit suicide or acted
6 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
(or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the
courts below and the legal position established through statutory
and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of
deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The
prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the
allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played
any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the
complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as
recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest
any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of
suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting
the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the
commission of suicide by her husband."
10. In Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another2, this
Court has further interpreted the offence as below:
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of
suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act
by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section
306 of the IPC, it must necessarily Prakash and Others v. State
of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020 be proved that
the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the
deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such
contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions
outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
time and again, and its principles are well- established. To
attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or
incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet
the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position that he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide."
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of
'instigation'. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3,
this Court observed:
7 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission or by a Ramesh Kumar
v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh4, wherein the Supreme Court held:
"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to
address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide.
Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without
any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A
casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary
course of things will not come within the purview of instigation.
A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the
status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a
situation for the victim to put an end to life."
13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements,
we find ourselves unable to agree with the High Court and Trial
Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and
the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of
evidence against the Appellant. We Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780 find that the acts of the Appellant are too
remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC.
There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the
deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate
act of committing suicide.
14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her
family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the
relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's
family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant
expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the
deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation
8 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to
not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not
gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that
creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in
order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.
8. In Yadwinder Singh (supra), the appeal was against the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in a quashing petition
seeking quashment of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section
306 of the IPC. The relevant paragraph showing the prosecution's case
therein is reproduced below:
4. It appears that two days later from the date of registration of the FIR
the mother of the deceased gave a supplementary statement before
the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The same reads thus:-
"Supplementary Statement of Surinder Kaur wife of Ravinder
Singh caste Jat, resident of H.No. C-21, Officers Enc1ave Near
Thumbs Up Factory, P.S. Chheharta, Amritsar under section 161
CR.P.C. It is stated that I am the resident of above said address. I
have come present in the po1ice station before you. I have got
registered FIR with you on 07.11.2016. At that time I was in
shock and I had fai1ed to get it written that on 6.11.2016 my
daughter was studying in the upper room and at that time she
talked with Yadwinder Singh alias Sunny number of times on
telephone. The mobile numbers of my daughter are 97800
35273, 79865 22566, and the mobile numbers of Yadwinder
Singh are 99883 65869 and 78371 25400. Both of them had
sent messages to each other on telephone. When I and Tejinder
Singh were taking my daughter Pardeep Kaur to the Hospital,
then at that time, my nephew Rupinder Singh son of Gurbachan
Singh, resident of Rattoke, District Tarn Taran had suddenly
come to meet us and he a1so accompanied us and at that time
my daughter was conscious. On my asking she to1d that
Yadwinder Singh had committed fraud with her. On the pretext
of marriage he has exploited her mentally and physically due to
which she got to harassed that she in clear words to1d him that
in case he has committed fraud like this, then she shall consume
sulphas and finish her life. At that time Yadwinder Singh told
her that he does not care in case she dies and do whatever you
want to. My daughter also told me that she a1so telephoned the
father of Yadwinder Singh i.e. Balwinder Singh on his mobi1e
no. 78371 25200 at about 4.30, but his father a1so did not care.
My daughter a1so to1d me that Yadwinder Singh has p1ayed
with her feelings and on the pretext of marriage has developed
9 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
physical re1ations with her. On the instigation of Yadwinder
Singh and taking him to be her husband, she submitted herself
to him physically. In case he had not instigated her by doing this
fraud, then may be she would not have done this extreme act.
Due to callous attitude of Yadwinder Singh, due to his flatly
refusing to perform marriage and due to his mental and physical
exploitation and since he did not care for her, there was nothing
left for her to live and due to his saying in clear words to do
whatever she wants to, and he does not care if she dies, and due
to instigation of Yadwinder Singh I have committed suicide.
When the treatment of my daughter was going in the Hospital at
about 6.15p.m., I telephoned Yadwinder Singh alias Sunny on
his mobile no. 99883 65869 and asked him as to why you have
done like this with my daughter that she was compelled to
commit suicide and after that my daughter died during
treatment at about 11.00 p.m. at night in the Escorts Hospital.
My daughter Pardeep Kaur has been instigated by Yadwinder
Singh a1ias Sunny to die. Strict legal action be taken against
Yadwinder Singh. I am handing over the CDs of the conversation
from the mobile of my daughter i.e. mobile no. 97800 35271 on
the mobi1e No. 99883 65869 of Yadwinder Singh and on mobile
no. 78371 25200 of the father of Yadwinder Singh i.e.
Balwinder Singh and the Bill of the Mobile Phone of Pardeep
Kaur bearing Bill No. 1500 dated 25.7.2016. You gave both the
CDs to constable Balwinder Singh No. 384/ASR who is posted
as a Junior Munshi in the police Station to make their script.
Constable Balwinder Singh put both the CDs one by one in the
computer and in my presence Constable Balwinder Singh
prepared an exact script of the CDs and gave the script of both
the CDs to you. You prepared separate parcels of both the CDs
and mobile phone separately and put your seal 'KS' and
prepared your sample seal separately and kept both the parcels
and mobile bill in your custody as evidence vide separate memo
and after use handed over the seal to HC Gurwinder Singh No.
363/ASR. You annexed the script to the file. I put my signatures
on the memo and HC Gurwinder Singh 363/ASR and constable
Balwinder Singh No. 384/ASR put their witness. The sim no.
79865 22566 which is of Jio Company is in my name and this
sim was being used by my daughter Pardeep kaur. I have heard
the statement. It is correct.
SD/- ASI
P.S. CHHEHARTA,
AMRITSAR. 9.11.2016"
9. It would not be out of place to reproduce further relevant
paragraphs from the same Judgment, as under: -
16. This Court in the case of "Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh" reported in SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly
explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the
relevant observations as under:-
10 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
"13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled.
Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-- "306. Abetment of
suicide. --If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as
under:-- "107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the doing
of a thing, who-- First. -- Instigates any person to do that thing;
or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally
aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19
SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC
along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC,
has observed as under:--
"14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the
same.
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate'
is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do
something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word
'instigate' as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do "an act".
11 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed
repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was
observed as under:-- "25. Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the
part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of
the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of
the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the
deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by
the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of
instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased
into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to
commit suicide.
18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to
opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with
the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which
the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide.
The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of
his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the
extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt
hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl.
However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with
such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the
evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled
constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself
would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of
the IPC.
19. We are of the view that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the
evidence on record would be nothing short of travesty of justice. Trial
would be an empty formality."
12 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
10. In Geo Varghese (supra), it was the case of suicide. The
prosecution's case was that the deceased was 14 years old and he
committed suicide leaving behind the suicide note. The relevant
paragraphs from the said decision are reproduced below:
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring
about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the
case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the
word 'instigate' as under :-
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act."
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with
Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the
case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.2, it was
observed as under:-
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the
case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
while considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306
IPC has observed as under :-
"47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High
Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR
under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33
CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating
agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the
investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court.
On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it
13 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and
the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash
the investigation ―and may pass appropriate interim orders
as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High Court
in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to
enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the
parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly
established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim
bail has been made out. The settled principles which have
been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal(Bhajan Lal) include a situation
where the allegations made in the FIR 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. This legal position was recently
reiterated in a decision by a two-judge Bench of this Court in
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra.
48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High
Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any
evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High
Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992
Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I 34
fundamental issue which needed to be considered while
dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the
Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, by
its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the
petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later,
and therefore declined to allow the appellant's prayer for
interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section
439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the
casualty. The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie
whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring
the case within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of
the IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task."
19. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of
Police, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients
of Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the
accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
14 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to
commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 I.P.C."
20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana5, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of
direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of
a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment
of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of
suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing
proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be
such action on the part of the accused which compels the person
to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of
suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above- referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not
be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on
the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case
may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and
self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of
suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts
and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
15 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the
accused kept on irritating or annoying the eceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular
case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to
be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of
the accused and the deceased."
22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under
Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and
mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person
would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such
actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of
suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and
the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step
of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every
case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration
the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on
the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.
39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute
examination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric
document, penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the same
also suggests the hyper- sensitive temperament of the deceased which
led him to take such an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand
by the accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily
induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.
40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie, in the FIR
or statement of the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances
showing any such act or intention that he intended to bring about the
suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even think that the
appellant had any intention to place the deceased in such
circumstances that there was no option available to him except to
commit suicide.
41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite
nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of
justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is
not exactly a pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher
would certainly suffer great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on
absurd allegations of irrelevant nature.
16 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
11. Coming to the case at hand, there is no dispute that the
informant, along with his family members, including the deceased, was
earlier residing near the house of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Applicant
Nos. 1 and 2 have a daughter. Both families were on visiting terms.
Sometime in the year 2021, the informant shifted his family to the place
'Deothan'. According to the informant, due to harassment by the
applicants to the deceased over the phone, the deceased committed
suicide. Admittedly, no call detail records have been seized by the
Investigating Officer or submitted along with the charge-sheet.
Undisputedly, during the course of investigation, a lengthy suicide note
was found, which is part and parcel of the charge-sheet. The suicide
note speaks of certain earlier incidents and accidents, which led him to
visit the police station, causing embarrassment to his father. The suicide
note further states that, the deceased was deeply in love with the
daughter of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and intended to marry her. His
family members were also ready for the same. He had imagined a
beautiful life with the girl. The applicants, who are the parents, brother,
and maternal uncle of the girl, were not in favour of the marriage. They
used to ask him to sever the relationship with the girl and threatened
him. The suicide note further states that, he had lost confidence and that
he always did what others wanted. Due to the telephonic threats, the
applicants were responsible for his extreme step. It further states that,
the girl was not at fault and that his brother had always helped him. The
17 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
tenor of the suicide note clearly indicates that the deceased did not want
to lose the girl and wished to settle in life with her. On perusal of the
suicide note, it becomes clear that, the deceased was a person of
sensitive temperament. He appears to have been a touchy and emotional
person.
12. The statement of the girl recorded by the Investigating
Officer shows that, though she knew the deceased and they were good
friends, she had informed the deceased that, they were only friends and
that she did not want to marry him, and thereby refused his proposal of
marriage. The girl further stated that, despite conveying her
disinclination for marriage, the deceased asked her as to why he was
sending persons to her father. Her statement further shows that, in
January 2022, she got engaged to a boy residing at Rajapur, Taluka
Sangamner, and the date of marriage was fixed as 25.03.2022. Her
statement further reveals that, the deceased used to constantly make
phone calls to her, due to which she blocked his mobile number. Three
(3) days prior to her marriage, the deceased made a phone call from a
different number, which she did not attend. There were 4-5 missed calls
from the said number on her mobile phone. In the evening, she came to
know that the deceased committed suicide.
13. The above-referred prosecution case and the material
available on record, including the suicide note, by no stretch of
imagination would show that, there was any instigation or abetment by
18 32APPLN2501.2024.odt
the applicants to the suicide. What the suicide note goes to show is that
the deceased could not succeed in what he intended and he was of a
hypersensitive temperament. Even accepting the prosecution case that,
the applicants made phone calls to the deceased and threatened him,
the same does not indicate any intention to place the deceased in such a
situation that, he should commit suicide. It is not that as if the deceased
had no other option but to commit suicide. Much prior to the incident,
the informant had shifted his residence along with his family to another
place. Even if it is accepted that the applicants threatened the deceased
with dire consequences, there is no material to show proximity between
the alleged threats given by the applicants and the suicide committed by
the deceased. In the absence of any material to attract the ingredients
of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, making the
applicants to face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
14. In view of the above factual position and the legal
proposition referred to herein above, in my considered view, this is a fit
case to quash the proceedings in exercise of the powers vested in this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, I
pass the following order:
ORDER
[i] The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', 'C' and 'C1' reproduced in foregoing paragraph no. 1.
19 32APPLN2501.2024.odt [ii] The Application stands disposed of.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/04/2026 10:49:40