Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Prem Singh on 28 May, 2025
2025:HHC:16370 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision Nos. 426 & 324 of 2019 Reserved on: 10.04.2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025
1. Cr. Revision No. 426 of 2019 State of Himachal Pradesh ...Petitioner Versus Prem Singh, son of late Shri Mohan Lal & others ...Respondents
2. Cr. Revision No. 324 of 2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus Parveen Chauhan & others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for the Petitioner/State in Cr.Revision No. 426 of 2019.
Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Akansha Chauhan, Advocate in Cr.Revision No. 324 of2019.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:16370 For the Respondents: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.3/State in revision No. 324 of 2019. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in Cr. Revision No. 426 of 2019 and Cr. Revision No. 324 of 2019. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
Since, both these revision petitions have arisen out of a common order dated 14.05.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla, H.P., hence, the same are being taken up together for consideration and disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 14.05.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were discharged. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience) 3 2025:HHC:16370
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
It was asserted that the informant is the father of Nitin Chauhan (since deceased). Nitin was married to Parveen Dulta, D/o of Prem Singh Dulta, in the year 2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. One son, Vedant, was born to the parties. The differences arose between them and divorce proceedings were initiated. Nitin Chauhan was looking after his orchard in his village. He had visited Shimla 2-3 days before the incident. He went to the Court to attend the hearing in the divorce proceedings on 01.12.2016. He took his meals in the evening and went to sleep at about 9:00 p.m. His mother went to his room on 02.12.2016 at about 7:00 a.m. and found that he was not present in the room. She informed her husband (informant). They searched for the deceased, but could not find him. His vehicle bearing registration No. HP51-2089 was parked outside the home. The informant and his wife went near the car and found that its doors were locked. Newspapers were affixed to the glasses. The blood was coming out of the car. They peeped inside 4 2025:HHC:16370 the vehicle and called for Nitin Chauhan, but no response was received. The informant opened the front door and found Nitin Chauhan lying on the rear seat of the car. Blood was coming out of his head. He was found dead. He left a suicide note mentioning that his wife Parveen Dulta, father-in-law Prem Singh Dulta and his mother-in-law, Salochna Dulta, harassed him due to which he had committed suicide. The matter was reported to the police. The police reached the spot and conducted the investigation. A pistol was found in the right hand of Nitin Chauhan, and an empty cartridge was recovered from the pistol. A suicide note was also found on the dashboard of the car. The police seized the pistol, empty cartridge, and live cartridges along with the vehicle. Another suicide note was found in a copy kept in the room of the deceased. These were seized by the police. The material objects inside the vehicle were sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the report, the handwriting on the suicide note matched the admitted handwriting of Nitin Chauhan. No poison or alcohol was found in the viscera of the deceased. The cartridge was fired from the firearm. The statements were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the 5 2025:HHC:16370 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, assigned the matter to learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla (learned Trial Court).
4. The learned Trial Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused on the question of framing of charges and held that not a single witness had deposed about the instigation/abatement by the accused to commit suicide. The prosecution's case is dependent upon the suicide note written by the deceased. The suicide note showed that negotiations were pending between the parties. Accused Parveen Dulta was asking for alimony in the divorce proceedings, which is her legal right. There was no proximity between the act of the accused and the commission of suicide.
No prima facie case was made out against the accused for framing the charges. Hence, the accused were ordered to be discharged.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the State and the informant have filed separate 6 2025:HHC:16370 petitions. In the petition filed by the State, it was asserted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused. The contents of the suicide note were ignored. It was specifically mentioned in the suicide note that the accused were mentally torturing and blackmailing the deceased and his family. The deceased was depressed because he was not allowed to meet his son Vedant. The Court had to see a prima facie case while framing the charges. Even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges. The Court has to see whether the material on record was sufficient to frame the charges, and the guilt or otherwise of the accused was to be determined after the conclusion of the Trial. The contents of the suicide note showed that the accused had harassed the deceased, and he was compelled to commit suicide due to the harassment meted by the accused. Even if two views were possible, the charges were to be framed and learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
6. In the petition filed by the informant, it was asserted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is cryptic and the 7 2025:HHC:16370 material on record was not considered. The contents of the suicide note were ignored by the learned Trial Court. They clearly showed a prima facie case against the accused. Learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused persons. The statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC were not considered. The Court is not to determine the guilt of the accused. It is not to conduct an inquiry at the stage of framing the charges. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
7. I have heard Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner/State in Criminal Revision No. 426 of 2019 and for the respondent/State in Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2019, Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Akansha Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 324 of 2019 and Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Abhinav Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent in Cr. Revision Nos. 426 of 2019 and 324 of 2019, respectively.
82025:HHC:16370
8. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner/State in Criminal Revision No. 426 of 2019 and the respondent/State in Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2019 submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused. The contents of the suicide note clearly show that the accused had harassed the deceased, and he was left with no option except to commit suicide. The statements of prosecution witnesses also proved that the accused had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
9. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 324 of 2019 adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, and he submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that in case of two views, the accused is to be discharged. The Court had to see a prima facie case while framing the charges, and a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges. There was sufficient material on record to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial 9 2025:HHC:16370 Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgments in State of Maharashtra, etc. vs Som Nath Thapa, etc. 1996 (4) SCC 659 and Sohni Devi vs. State of H.P. & another along with connected matter in Cr. Revision Nos. 224 of 2022 and 299 of 2022, decided on 09.01.2024 in support of his submission.
10. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in Cr. Revision No. 426 of 2019 and respondents No.1 to 3 in Cr. Revision Petition 324 of 2019 submitted that the contents of the suicide note only proved that litigation was pending between the parties. Learned Trial Court held that filing a petition for divorce or seeking alimony does not constitute an abatement to commit suicide, as accused Parveen Dulta was not residing with the deceased. She did not have any occasion to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed that present petitions be dismissed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission:
1. M. Mohan vs State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626;
2. S.S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190;
3. Dasrath vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 198;10
2025:HHC:16370
4. Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618;
5. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371;
6. Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2012) 9 SCC 734;
7. Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605;
8. Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & another (2012) 9 SCC 460;
9. Pappu alias Ram Narayan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 488;
10. Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2023 INSC 1026:
11. Shyam Lal Negi vs State of H.P. in Cr. Revision No. 324 of 2016 decided on 24th July 2017
12. Varun Bhardwaj vs State of H.P. passed in Cr.
Revision No. 268 2016 decided on 25.04.2017
13. State of H.P. vs. Rajinder Singh passed in Cr.MMO No. 113 of 2019 decided on 26.11.2019
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Dilip Singh Kishor Singh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 that the Judge has to examine the evidence collected by the prosecution while framing a charge and determine whether 11 2025:HHC:16370 or not sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused based on the material placed before him or not. The accused does not have any right to produce the documents at the time of framing charges. It was observed: -
"7. It is trite law that the application of judicial mind is necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell on the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only.12
2025:HHC:16370
9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge- sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O.
10. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the 13 2025:HHC:16370 existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini-trial at this stage."
11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the 14 2025:HHC:16370 material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.
13. This position was reiterated in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v.
State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 502: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582, wherein it was observed on page 513: -
"15. The extent of scrutiny permissible when an application for discharge is being considered has attracted this Court's attention on a number of occasions. It is appropriate to take note of the leading precedents on the subject. Insofar as Section 245, CrPC is concerned, the decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand [Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, (2009)
14 SCC 115 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1301] is instructive : (SCC pp. 124-25 & 127-28, paras 19-20, 22-25 & 36-37) "19. The essential difference of procedure in the trial of a warrant case on the basis of a police report and that instituted otherwise than on the police report is particularly marked in Sections 238 and 239CrPC on one side and Sections 244 and 245CrPC on the other. Under Section 238, when in a warrant case, instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that he has been supplied the necessary documents like the police report, FIR, statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161CrPC of all the witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, as also the confessions and statements recorded under Section 164 and any other documents which have been forwarded by the prosecuting agency to the court.
20. After that, comes the stage of discharge, for which it is provided in Section 239CrPC that the Magistrate has to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173CrPC and if necessary, has to examine 15 2025:HHC:16370 the accused and has to hear the prosecution of the accused, and if on such examination and hearing, the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, he would discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. The prosecution at that stage is not required to lead evidence. If, on examination of the aforementioned documents, he comes to the prima facie conclusion that there is a ground for proceeding with the trial, he proceeds to frame the charge. For framing the charge, he does not have to pass a separate order. It is then that the charge is framed under Section 240CrPC and the trial proceeds for recording the evidence. Thus, in such a trial prosecution has only one opportunity to lead evidence and that too comes only after the charge is framed.
*** 22 [Ed.: Para 22 was corrected vide Official Corrigendum F.3/Ed.B.J./124/2009 issued on 22-8- 2009 by the Court.]. In the warrant trial instituted otherwise than the police report, the complainant gets two opportunities to lead evidence, firstly, before the charge is framed and secondly, after the framing of the charge. Of course, under Section 245(2)CrPC, a Magistrate can discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case, if he finds the charge to be groundless.
23. Essentially, the applicable sections are Sections 244 and 245CrPC since this is a warrant trial instituted otherwise than on police reports. There had to be an opportunity for the prosecution to lead evidence under Section 244 (1) CrPC or to summon its witnesses under Section 244 (2) CrPC. This did not happen and instead, the accused proceeded to file an application under Section 245 (2) CrPC on the ground that the charge was groundless.
24. Now, there is a clear difference in Sections 245 (1) and 245(2) of CrPC. Under Section 245(1), the Magistrate has the advantage of the evidence led by the prosecution before him under Section 244 and he 16 2025:HHC:16370 has to consider whether if the evidence remains unrebutted, the conviction of the accused would be warranted. If there is no discernible incriminating material in the evidence, then the Magistrate proceeds to discharge the accused under Section 245(1)CrPC.
25. The situation under Section 245(2)CrPC is, however, different. There, under sub-section (2), the Magistrate has the power of discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case i.e. even before such evidence is led. However, for discharging an accused under Section 245(2)CrPC, the Magistrate has to come to a finding that the charge is groundless. There is no question of any consideration of evidence at that stage because there is none. The Magistrate can take this decision before the accused appears or is brought before the court or the evidence is led under Section 244CrPC. The words appearing in Section 245(2)CrPC "at any previous stage of the case", clearly bring out this position.
***
36. The Magistrate has the power to discharge the accused under Section 245(2)CrPCat any previous stage i.e. before the evidence is recorded under Section 244(1)CrPC, which seems to be the established law, particularly in view of the decision in Cricket Assn. of Bengal v. State of W.B. [Cricket Assn. of Bengal v. State of W.B., (1971) 3 SCC 239: 1971 SCC (Cri) 446], as also the subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in Luis de Piedade Lobo v. Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar [Luis de Piedade Lobo v. Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar, 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 323]. The same decision was followed by the Kerala High Court in Manmohan Malhotra v. P.M. Abdul Salam [Manmohan Malhotra v. P.M. Abdul Salam, 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 5] and Hon'ble Justice K.T. Thomas, as the learned Judge then was, accepted the proposition that the Magistrate has the power under Section 245(2)CrPC to discharge the accused at any previous stage. The Hon'ble Judge 17 2025:HHC:16370 relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in Mohd. Sheriff Sahib v. Abdul Karim Sahib [Mohd. Sheriff Sahib v. Abdul Karim Sahib, 1927 SCC OnLine Mad 137:
AIR 1928 Mad 129 (1)], as also the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Gopal Chauhan v. Satya [Gopal Chauhan v. Satya, 1978 SCC OnLine HP 33].
37. We are convinced that under Section 245(2)CrPC the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any previous stage i.e. even before any evidence is recorded under Section 244(1)CrPC. In that view, the accused could have made the application. It is obvious that the application has been rejected by the Magistrate. So far, there is no difficulty."(emphasis in original and supplied)
16. Turning to Sections 239 to 240CrPC, this Court held as under in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar [Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181]: (SCC pp. 144-45, paras 6-8) "6. Having regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case the Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173CrPC and examine the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239CrPC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240CrPC.
7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out -- as has been done in the instant case -- the 18 2025:HHC:16370 person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173CrPC and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.
8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240CrPC the High Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order [Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1992 SCC OnLine P&H 663]. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding the commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge, the Court cannot usurp the functions of a trial court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case."
(emphasis supplied)
17. With great respect, we express our reservations in fully acceding to what has been stated above. If para 8 of Minakshi Bala [Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 19 2025:HHC:16370 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181] is accepted as it is, the necessary concomitant would be that despite examining the matter in detail, a court would find its wings clipped to intercede. This would amount to forcing a person to stand trial, even when the overwhelming material points to his/her innocence. Obviously, the hands of a court ought not to be tied down, and especially not by a higher court, and more so not against liberty. Para 7 of Minakshi Bala [Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142:
1994 SCC (Cri) 1181] does enable examining unimpeachable documents. We are conscious that Minakshi Bala [Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1181] has been followed in later decisions by the Court. However, we have chosen to survey the precedents further, and then decide on the road we wish to take [Yes, the allusion is to Robert Frost's celebrated poem -- The Road Not Taken.].
18. In Rumi Dhar v. State of W.B. [Rumi Dhar v. State of W.B., (2009) 6 SCC 364: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1074], this Court held that the Judge concerned with an application under Section 239CrPC has to:
"17. ... go into the details of the allegations made against each of the accused persons so as to form an opinion as to whether any case at all has been made out or not as a strong suspicion in regard thereto shall subserve the requirements of law. (SCC p. 369, para
17)"
19. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], it was observed notwithstanding the difference in language of Sections 227 and 239CrPC, the approach of the Court concerned is to be common under both provisions. The principles holding the field under Sections 227 and 228CrPC are well settled, courtesy, inter alia, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC 20 2025:HHC:16370 (Cri) 609] ; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 285] ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47] ; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra [Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 310] ; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] ; Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. [Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2014) 13 SCC 137 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 614] ; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361] and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] .
We need only refer to some, starting with Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 SCC (Cri) 609], where, after considering Ramesh Singh [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39: 1977 SCC (Cri) 533], K.P. Raghavan v. M.H. Abbas [K.P. Raghavan v. M.H. Abbas, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 76: AIR 1967 SC 740] and Almohan Das v. State of W.B. [Almohan Das v. State of W.B., 1968 SCC OnLine SC 85 : (1969) 2 SCR 520], it was laid down as under : (Prafulla Kumar Samal case [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 SCC (Cri) 609], SCC p. 9, para 10) "10. Thus, on consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.21
2025:HHC:16370 (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi [Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76: 1991 SCC (Cri) 47], this Court was alive to reality, stating that : (SCC p. 85, para 7) "7. ... it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case."
If a view gives rise to suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the court concerned is empowered to discharge the accused, as pointed out in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371]. The Court, in Dinesh Tiwari [Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., 22 2025:HHC:16370 (2014) 13 SCC 137 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 614] had reasoned that if the court concerned opines that there is ground to presume the accused has committed an offence, it is competent to frame a charge even if such offence is not mentioned in the charge-sheet. As to what is "strong suspicion", reference to Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361] is warranted, where it was explained that it is : (SCC p. 561, para 23) "23. ... the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence."
14. The present matter has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The first suicide note recovered from the car, freely translated into English, reads as under:-
"I, Nitin Chauhan, am very disturbed and sad. My wife Parveen and her parents have made my life worse than hell. I tried my best to keep her with love and happiness, but Parveen and her parents, Prem Singh Dulta and Salochna Dulta, had made me mad in one sense. My marriage will be four years old in December. I am completely devastated. I take care of my orchard, and I needed a household wife who would remain with me. My parents had disclosed this fact before my marriage. Parents of Parveen were also told about the fact that we did not want an employed girl. I agreed to marry on this condition. Parveen and her parents also clarified before the marriage that she would not get any employment after the marriage. She would do as would be desired for her by me and my parents, and her parents assured me that she would remain a homemaker in the village with her husband. I agreed to this marriage on this assurance and the promise, however, Parveen continued to 23 2025:HHC:16370 serve even after her marriage. I supported her despite my unwillingness. One son, Vedant, was born to us after one year of marriage. I love you very much, and I'm taking this step for him. Parveen and her parents started harassing me. I got him admitted to BCS Academy despite my unwillingness. I called the tutor at home and cooperated with her in every possible manner; however, she did not understand my life or me. She would lie frequently and misbehave with my parents. She would talk back to them and would not do any work for the child. She would quarrel with me on trivial matters and threaten to implicate me in a false case of harassment for dowry. Her father also started threatening me and my family members about his position as Tehsildar. She joined the job at Chelsea without informing me and my family members. We came to know this fact from someone else. She would lie on every matter and would not respect any person. She would argue with my parents. Prem Singh Dulta supported her in all these matters. Then they started blackmailing in the name of my son Vedant. Her father visited my home and recited all the promises made by him. He threatened us with his position as Tehsildar. Parveen and her parents started threatening to get me arrested in a case of dowry harassment and a domestic violence case. My parents belong to a respectable family. They get frightened after hearing all these talks.
My parents have become patients and cannot sleep at night. They spent every minute in a state of fear. I cannot see my parents dying like this.
My home is getting destroyed in my presence. I have lost 15 kg in one year. I am living under this tension. My family and home are getting destroyed, and I cannot do anything. It was the worst day of my life when I was engaged to these people. I have not seen shoddier, greedier and bad people in my 36 years of life than these persons. They threatened me repeatedly with false cases and police arrest. The law and order are also in favour of the girls. They are taking advantage of this fact. Everybody tells her that the law is in 24 2025:HHC:16370 their favour. I and my family members would be arrested on a single complaint. My parents get afraid after hearing this. They are getting depressed, and I cannot do anything. I have become frustrated, sad and anxious during the four years of my marriage, which I was never so during the rest of my life. Parveen and her parents have entered into this relationship by telling a lie. They destroyed the happiness, and peace of my family after the marriage and turned me into a mental wreck. Prem Singh Dulta demanded one flat, 50 lacs rupees and a 6% share in the property to leave me alone. I love my son Vedant. They taking advantage of this fact. Parveen does not have any attachment or love towards her son. She had turned him into a pawn to get money from me and my family. I tolerated everything for four years. I did everything that was asked of me, however, their greed and shoddiness are increasing with time. They want to snatch my son away from me. Now he is also with them. I pray to God that such a Kalyugi mother should not be born in this Kalyug again. My soul is in my son Vedant, and I can do everything for his life. I am ready to give everything to him.
Parveen is blackmailing me and demanding money from me by making Vedant a pawn. They had hatched this plan since the beginning. She loves her job more than her child. She could sell me and Vedant for her job. Parveen and her parents have not given me anything except betrayal, lies and deceit. She never loved me. She always harassed me and made me sad. Her parents always assisted her. Today I am so sad and anxious that I have no other option except what I am doing today. I am tired and broken. I pray to God that such people should not come into the life of any person. Parveen and her father, Prem Dulta, and mother, Salochna Dulta, are completely responsible for the steps which I am taking. These people instigated me to I should take such a step. Today, I am helpless and powerless.
I, Nitin Chauhan, want (this is my last wish) that Vedant should be removed from the shadow of these bad people. Vedant should be kept with my parents as my remembrance. This is my last wish.25
2025:HHC:16370 I have full faith in God that he would not spare these people. I wish that whatever had happened to me would not happen to any other person. I believe that it is a nightmare, and such people do not exist in reality. I never thought in my wildest dreams that these things would happen to me. However, this was my fate, god please forgive me.
My parents, brother, sister-in-law and my relatives supported me in this difficult time. I love all of you. I should be forgiven if I committed some mistake. Vedant should be given the love of my share. I am leaving Vedant with you. Please forgive me.
Your son Nitin Chauhan.
16. The police also found other suicide notes in the room of the deceased, which read as under:-
"I, Nitin Chauhan, these are my last words. I am ending my life because of my wife Parveen Dulta, her father Prem Singh Dulta and Saluchna Dulta. They have been harassing me mentally, torturing and blackmailing me and my family for the past 3 years. Now they have put many false cases against me and my family in Court. I tried my best to save my marriage, but I quit. I have a son named Vedanat. He is 5 years old, and he is my lifeline and heartbeat. I love him very much, but fighting for 3 years. I am not getting proper visiting rights to meet him, I am a father for nothing. The law is in girls' favour. Parveen and her father are taking full advantage of this. My whole life is disturbed and finished. They ruined my life. I am in great shock. Parveen and her father are asking for a huge amount of money from me, which I cannot pay. My financial status is not good. Time and again, they are blackmailing me and my family for my son Vedant. Marriage for the sake of my son Vendant, so they are taking full advantage of this. I am a very emotional person and attached to my son and family.26
2025:HHC:16370 Parveen Dulta and her father are not good human beings. They are greedy, and selfish and can do anything for money. Prem Singh Dulta only married her daughter to me for money. They both cheated me and my family. Nowadays, it is very simple for a girl to harass her husband and in-laws. She tried her best to get me and my parents arrested by filing false police complaints against me and my family, but she failed to prove anything. I am a victim of domestic violence, not her, and this I know, and my God knows the truth. My family is honest and respected. I have never been to a Police Station or a Court in my entire life before this.
My family stood by me all the time. I love them and cannot see them harassed like this at this age. My last wish is that after my death, please do justice to my family and son Vedant. Parveen is not a good mother, she is very cunning, selfish and greedy. She is not taking proper care of Vedant at this age. Vedadnt needs her time and care, but she is out of her house from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the evening. Not have time for Vedant. I tried my best for Vedant's custody but failed every time. For Vedant, I only want to say that Papa loves you very much. You are my sweetheart. Be a good human being and forgive me. I want the Vedant custody to be given to my parents. They love him very much. I am sure they will take better care of Vedant than Parveen.
God will punish people like Parveen and Prem Dulta. Mom, I am sorry. I love you very much, please forgive me for this. I hope you will understand. Lots of love to Papa, Sachin Bhai, Chhaya and Sonam Baby.
Your loving son Nitin Applu My family stood by me all the time I love them and cannot see them I love them and cannot see them harassed like this at this age. My last wish is that after my death, please do justice to my family and son Vedant.27
2025:HHC:16370 Parveen is not a good mother, she is very cunning, selfish and greedy. She is not taking proper care of Vedant at this age. Vedant needs her time and care, but she is out of her house from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the evening. Not have time for Vedant. I tried my best for Vednant's custody but failed every time. Xxx I, Nitin Chauhan, these are my last words. I am ending my life because of my wife Parveen Dulta, her father Prem Singh Dulta and Saluchna Dulta, who have been harassing mentally torturing and blackmailing me and my family for the past 3 years. Now they had put many false cases against me and my family in Court. I tried my best to save my marriage, but I quit. I have a son named Vedant, he is 5 years old, and he is my lifeline and heartbeat love him very much. But after fighting for 2 years, I am not getting proper visiting rights to meet him. I am a father for nothing. The law is in girls' favour. Parveen and Prem Singh Dulta are taking full advantage of this. My whole life is disturbed and finished. They ruined me and my family's life. I am in great shock. Parveen and her father are asking for a huge amount of money from me and my family, which I cannot pay. My financial status is not good. Time and again, they are blackmailing me and my family for my son Vedant. I tried my best to save my marriage for the sake of my son Vedant. They know how much I and my parents love Vedant. So they are taking full advantage of this. I am a very emotional person and attached to my son and my family.
Parveen Daulta and Prem Singh Dulta are not good human beings; they are greedy, selfish, and can do anything for money. Prem Singh Dulta only married her daughter to me for money. They both cheated me and my family. Nowadays it is very simple for a girl to harass her husband and in-laws. She tried her best to get me and my parents arrested by filing false police complaints against us, but she failed to prove anything by God's grace.
Xx 28 2025:HHC:16370 I am a victim of domestic violence, not Parveen, and this I know, and my God knows the truth. My family is an honest and respected family, and Parveen and her father are taking full advantage of this. I have never been to a Police Station or a Court in my entire life before this. My family stood by me all the time. I love them and can't see them harassed like this at this age. My last wish is that after my death, please do justice to my family and son Vedant.
Parveen Dulta is not a good mother; she is very cunning, selfish and greedy. She is not taking proper care of Vedant. At his age, Vedant needs her time and care, but she is never available for him. She is out of her house from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the evening not have time for Vedant. When Vedant comes to meet me, he always cries and says I want to live with you, Papa. I tried my best for Vedant's custody but failed. For Vedant, I only want to say that Papa loves you very much, you are my sweetheart. Be a good human being and forgive me. I wish my blessings and good wishes are always with you. I want Vedant's custody to be given to my parents, who love him very much. I am sure they will take better care of Vedant than Parveen and her family. God will punish people like Parveen and Prem Dulta. Please do justice to my family and son. I want them to get out of all these court cases. Mom, I love you very much. Please forgive me for this. I hope you will understand me, I am a mummas boy. Love you, Papa, Sachin bhai, Chhaya and Sonam.
Your loving son Nitin Chauhan Sd/-
Xxx I am ending my life because Prem Singh Dulta and my wife Parveen Dulta have been harassing and mentally torturing me and my family for the past 4 years. Now, they had put false cases of domestic violence, and dowry against me and my 29 2025:HHC:16370 family. My parents are suffering a lot at this age. They have become patients and are getting harassed and depressed by all that Prem Singh Dulta is doing. I can't see them and me suffering any more. It is all because I am a man, and the law is in favour of girls. They can put any charges on us. My life is stuck up in false court cases and allegations. I have a son named Vedant who is my lifeline line I love him very much. He will be 5 years old in August. After fighting for months, I am not able to get proper visiting rights to meet him. I am a father for nothing. I don't want to drag my son into this. But only one thing I have to say to you is this: Papa loves you a lot. My best wishes are always with you, be a good human being and forgive me.
Parveen Dulta and Prem Singh Dulta are not good human beings. They all want money. They are very greedy people. Prem Singh Dulta only married her girl to me for money. They cheated me and ruined my life. They are blackmailing me and my family for Vedant and asking for a huge amount of money. I will not allow them to ruin Vedant's life and my family. I tried my best to save my marriage, but I quit. Love my family, and Vedant can't see you suffer like this. I have hope in God. He will punish people like Prem Singh Dulta and Parveen. After my death, please do justice to my family.
I love you all Nitin Chauhan Applu Sd/-
17. It is apparent from these suicide notes that the deceased was depressed because his wife and parents-in-law had deceived him. They had assured him that Parveen would settle with him as a homemaker in the village, but she continued to work. They threatened to falsely implicate him and get him 30 2025:HHC:16370 and his family arrested in the cases of dowry and domestic violence. They made his son Vedant a pawn and demanded money, a share in the property and a house for them. Parveen and her parents were mentally torturing and blackmailing him.
Parveen and her father was asking for a huge amount of money, which he could not pay.
18. The learned Trial Court held that a wife has a right to seek alimony, and such an act does not amount to the instigation/abetment. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law; however, in the present case, the suicide note shows that the wife and her parents had gone a step further. They continuously threatened the deceased and his family members to get them arrested. They demanded money from the deceased and his family members by using his son as a pawn. The deceased specifically mentioned that he was harassed, depressed and sad due to all these acts. Therefore, prima facie, the material on record was sufficient to infer that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was held in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1486 that 31 2025:HHC:16370 where the conduct of the accused was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit the suicide, the accused is liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. It was observed on page 612:
22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of the investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore, clause Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted.
19. In Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 827 the suicide note mentioned that the accused humiliated and exploited the deceased. He forced the deceased to resign. It was held that when the harassment is not a casual feature but a persistent one, it would constitute a reason for the commission of suicide. It was observed on page 741:
18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case, there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct 32 2025:HHC:16370 evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 CrPC.
19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non-fulfilment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-
à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 420 of 2006, decided on 5-1-2012 (Utt)] of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
332025:HHC:16370
20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar versus the State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573 that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. It was observed:
"17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan [Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144], considering the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, observed as under: (SCC pp. 149-50, paras 14-16) "14. Section 306IPC 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 [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], has defined the word "instigate" as under : (SCC p. 629, para 20) '20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".'
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its correlation with Section 306 IPC have been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465], it was observed as under : (SCC p. 197, para 25) '25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or 34 2025:HHC:16370 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 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. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219], while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under : (SCC p. 317, para 7) "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment and (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 an act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306], held that to convict an accused under Section 306IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under: (SCC pp. 321-22, para 16) "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts (s) of 35 2025:HHC:16370 incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of 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 an accusation of 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, a 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 the 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 the 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 to perceive 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 36 2025:HHC:16370 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 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 deceased 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."
20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387], after referring to the above-referred decisions rendered in the context of culpability under Section 306 IPC, observed as under: (SCC para 45) "45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
21. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 417], observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107IPC, the state of 37 2025:HHC:16370 mind to commit a particular crime must be visible to determine the culpability.
22. This Court in Kashibai v. State of Karnataka [Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 15 SCC 751: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575], observed that to bring the case within the purview of "abetment" under Section 107IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
23. Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continues and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).
24. For intention in English law, Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, provides the frame in which the mens rea is assessed. It states:
"A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions, but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances."38
2025:HHC:16370 Under Section 8(b), therefore, the jury is allowed wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intent or foresight on the basis of all the evidence.
25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.
21. This position was reiterated in Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 322 wherein it was observed:
15. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence in India.
Section 309 IPC says that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards such act shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with a fine or with both. However, once suicide is carried out, the offence is complete. Considering the nature of the offence, obviously, such a person would be beyond the reach of the law. Therefore, the question of penalising him would not arise, but whoever abets the commission of such suicide would be penalised under Section 306 IPC. The punishment prescribed under Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to a fine. What Section 306 IPC says is that if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished as above.
16. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 IPC is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of the IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing, if he 39 2025:HHC:16370 encourages one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission in doing that thing. There are two explanations for Section 107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person, by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise 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 clarifies that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, is said to aid in the doing of that act.
17. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification of Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 IPC says is that whenever any person is absent but was present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such an act or offence and would be liable to be punished as an abettor.
18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused, by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct, creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then 'instigation' may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'
19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 40 2025:HHC:16370 'urging forward'. This Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment' as under:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 is a case where this Court held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301
21. After considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, this Court in Rajesh versus State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359 held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in 41 2025:HHC:16370 order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
23. This Court in Amudha versus State 2024 INSC 244 held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
24. Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka (2024) SCC Online SC 3541, this Court observed that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society. The commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra. 2024 INSC 1020 is a case where this Court, after analysing various decisions on the point, summed up the legal position in the following manner:
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.
25.1. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours between using of abusive 42 2025:HHC:16370 language by the accused and the commission of suicide would not amount to a proximate act."
22. Learned Trial court relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Shyam Lal Negi vs State of H.P 2018 STPL 3253 (2017 Cri.LJ.(NOC) 605) in which the deceased had worked under the petitioner and was deputed for other duties. He shot himself after about one month. There was no proximity to the suicide.
The suicide note only mentioned that the deceased was harassed, and he was shooting himself.
23. In the present case, the suicide notes mention the details of the harassment due to which the deceased felt compelled to take his life, therefore, not much advantage can be derived from the cited judgment.
24. Mr R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment in M. Mohan (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of IPC and held that the denial of permission to use the Quails car on 14.01.2005 was not sufficient to convict the accused for the commission of suicide, which took place on 18.01.2005. In the present case, the prosecution has not relied upon a solitary 43 2025:HHC:16370 incident but upon a series of incidents. Hence, this judgment will not help the accused.
25. In S.S. Cheena (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petty discord and differences, which happen in daily life. The suicide note shows that false allegations of theft were made against the deceased, due to which he committed suicide. This judgment shows that it was a case of a solitary instance.
26. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the deceased had written a letter expressing her love for her husband. She made a dying declaration that a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband in the morning when her husband told her that she was free to do whatever she wanted. It was held that a mere quarrel when the deceased had expressed her love to her husband was not sufficient. Further, she mentioned that no one should be held responsible for her suicide, which is not the case here.
Hence, this judgment will also not help the accused.
27. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) the deceased was without any work and was in the habit of drinking.
He was a frustrated man, and his suicide note showed that he 44 2025:HHC:16370 was not in a sound state of mind. In the present case, the state of mind of the deceased is a question of fact to be examined during the trial. Hence, this judgment will not assist the accused.
28. In Rajinder Singh (supra), passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court it was held that the Court has to see a prima facie case while framing the charge. The Court cannot permit the prosecution to go on if it falls in the categories mentioned in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & others.
29. Dasrath (supra) dealt with an offence punishable under section 304B of IPC which is not involved in the present case. Therefore, the cited judgments do not apply to the present case.
30. In the present case suicide note clearly showed that the deceased was subjected to persistent pressure, therefore, he was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
Therefore, there was sufficient material on record to frame the charges against the accused.
31. The learned Trial Court held that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion, the charge cannot be framed. This was an incorrect application of the law 45 2025:HHC:16370 because if there is a grave suspicion against the accused at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is bound to frame the charges and not to discharge the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had applied the wrong principle of law while evaluating the material to determine whether the charges were to be framed or not and arrived at an incorrect conclusion that the accused were to be discharged even if there was suspicion against them. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable.
32. Consequently, both revisions are allowed, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside.
33. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court.
The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.07.2025.
34. The present revision petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.
35. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
462025:HHC:16370
36. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of this revisions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) 28 May 2025 th Judge (ravinder)