SURESH SHIVARAM BHAT v. STATE OF KARNA

petitioner, a perusal of the complaint, FIR, suicide note and the letter of undertaking dated 30.08.2024 given by respondent No.2- defacto complainant cumulatively establish that necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 306 and 107 of IPC are conspicuously absent and missing in the aforesaid documents. In fact in the complaint, except stating that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 his son had left behind a suicide/death note allegedly blaming the petitioner and the School Authorities, there are no other allegations made against the petitioner by the respondent No.2-defacto complainant; on the other hand, subsequently, on 30.08.2024, the respondent No.2 had given/submitted a letter of undertaking unequivocally stating that the petitioner or the School Authorities were not responsible for the demise of his son and that respondent No.2 intends to withdraw the complaint filed by him and requested respondent No.1 – Police Authorities to close the case by filing a ‘B’ report. In addition thereto, there is absolutely no material whatsoever to establish that the said student committed suicide on account of the instigation on the part of the petitioner or the School Authorities so as to incriminate them for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

#7. In Geo Varghese’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:

#12. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to commit suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306IPC. It would - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 be relevant to set out Section 306IPC, which reads as under: suicide, whoever “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits 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.”

#13. Though, IPC does not define the word “suicide” but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is “self-killing”. The word is derived from a modern Latin word “suicidium”, “sui” means “oneself” and “cidium” means “killing”. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of “self-killing”. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.

#14. Section 306IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107IPC which reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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 commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” that act, and facilitates thereby

#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 107IPC and its co- relation with Section 306IPC has 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 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 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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.”

#17. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra [Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 834] , while considering the co-relation of Section 107IPC with Section 306IPC has observed as under : (SCC p. 462, paras 47-48) Jeelani “47. The above decision [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined v. State of [Habib Abdullah Telangana, 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1299] to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self-restraint imposed by jurisdiction law, has investigation “and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law”. Clearly therefore, the High Court in the [Arnab present case has misdirected Manoranjan Goswami Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2693] 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. to quash State v. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] (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 v. State of Maharashtra [Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 846] .

#48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment [Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2693] 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 fundamental issue which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC. The High Court, by its [Arnab judgment Manoranjan Goswami Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2693] , 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 439CrPC. 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 34IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.” 9-11-2020 v. State - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#18. In M. Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of Section 306IPC in the following words : (SCC p. 317, para 7) “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306IPC 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 suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306IPC.”

#19. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306] , which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306IPC in the following words : (SCC pp. 321-22, para 16) “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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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 abovereferred, 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 306IPC. 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 harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused intended nothing more - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat [Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, (2019) 13 SCC 598 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 636] , wherein the judgment [Vinayak Deorao Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 15933] rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section 306IPC stating that the son and daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 9-2-2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on 12-2-2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482CrPC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#21. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the following observations : (Vinayak Deorao Bhagat case [Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, (2019) 13 SCC 598 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 636] , SCC p. 603, para 12) allegations her which “12. We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against the first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on the part of the respondent.” investigation was yet In the abovequoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide.

#22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306IPC 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 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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 are 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 consideration surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.

#23. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the facts of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306IPC exist, even prima facie, to continue with the investigations.

#24. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental pressure because the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school on 25-4-2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today again he was harassed and insulted by the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was informed that the parents have been called to school next day and this brought him under further severe pressure and tension. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#25. In the first information report and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted.

#26. The appellant in his petition under Section 482CrPC before the High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of, much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also stated that the victim, a student of Class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times. On 19- 4-2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him. On 25-4- 2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the appellant issued him a warning and on account of persistent act of bunking classes, reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.

#28. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any undisciplined act of a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24(1)(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information about the child. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has been attributed the appellant either information report or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as the appellant is concerned, “THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL”. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offence for which he is being charged.

#30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306IPC.

#31. Our answer to the said question is “No”.

#32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without there being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 mens rea can be attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the absence of the element of abetment missing the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 306IPC do not exist.

#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 hypersensitive temperament of the deceased which led him take such an extraordinary 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 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature.

#42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineated hereinabove and the legal principles enunciated by a series of pronouncements of this Court discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under Section 482CrPC for quashing the first information report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

#43. We are conscious of the pain and suffering of the complainant who is the mother of the deceased boy. It is also very unfortunate that a young life has been lost in this manner, but our sympathies and the pain and suffering of the complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy, much less a criminal prosecution.

#44. In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30-4-2019 [Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 3724] cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The first information report registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South), stands quashed.

#45. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.”

#8. In Amudha’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under: - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#9. The other material placed on record is in the form of four suicide notes allegedly written by deceased. In the said suicide note, there is a general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide. It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture. Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner from 12th September 2019 to 5th March 2020.

#10. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh,1 after considering the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, in paragraph 43, held thus: "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." (emphasis added) - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2, in paragraph 12, this Court held thus: "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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 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 to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." the person (emphasis added)

#11. Taking the charge sheet as correct, we find that there were no acts of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide. Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant.

#12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and proceedings in P.R.C. No.32/2021 (Charge Sheet No.14/2021) pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Puducherry stands quashed as against the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 appellant. We make it clear that the adjudication is confined to only the case of the present appellant, and the Trial Court is free to proceed against the other accused in accordance with the law. However, the defences of the other accused are kept open.

#13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”

#9. In Prakash’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:

#12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are 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.

#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. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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.”

#13. Section 306 of 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 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.

#15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.

#16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows: “16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. irrespective of it by himself, ………..

#18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. ……….

#21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 “1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. ………..

#23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC p. 90, para 17) in assessing “17. … The court should be extremely facts and careful circumstances of each case and evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged differences were not expected to induce a in a similarly circumstanced given society conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” to commit suicide, petulance, petulance, individual discord discord - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

#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 this 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.”

#17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 no other option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts differently the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

#18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows: “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:- “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 continued 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.” conduct created course

#20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in fit of anger or emotion without intending - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

#21. Relying on the decision the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana observed as follows: “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, 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 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 - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 the accused intended nothing more 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 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.

16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, rural or urban set-ups, personality, upbringing, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.”

#22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that 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 has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a 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. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.

#23. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the appellant before this Court was charged with having abetted the suicide by his brother-in-law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife who at the material time was staying with the appellant therein. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 On 25th July, 1998 the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his wife. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased who came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words. On 27th July, 1998 the deceased was found dead. The deceased left a suicide note which showed his disturbed state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for the suicide. The appellant’s petition for quashing of the charge-sheet filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court which led him to file an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed. While taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as was evident from the suicide note and the lack of intention on the part of the accused to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased, the Court held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between the abusive language being used and the commission of suicide. As such, owing to the passage of 48 hours, giving the deceased enough time to reflect, there was no proximate link between the words uttered and the act of suicide. This Court observed as follows: “8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased “to go and die”. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased “to go and die” were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) for an offence under Section 306 “My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons to die by and being harassed burning.” I want

#10. This Court, considering the definition of “abetment” under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.

#11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set herself on fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p. 620) “A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”

#12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7- 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”. For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to inadvisable action or to do some drastic or incite. Presence of mens stimulate or rea, therefore, the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25- 7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27- 7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7- 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7- 1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25- 7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below. ………….

#14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25- 7-1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25- 7-1998. circumstances Viewed independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25- 7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.” (emphasis supplied) that excessive drinking leads one aforesaid

#24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that both the courts below had erroneously accepted the - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that the appellant therein had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased ‘to go and die’. It was held that even if one accepts the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. This Court held that it was common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment could not be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that the alleged abusive words were said to have been told to the deceased on 25th July 1998 during a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and therefore, it could not be said that the abusive language which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide on 27th July 1998. It has been held that the suicide by the deceased was not proximate to the abusive language used two days prior. Additionally this Court held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it clear that the deceased was in great stress and depressed and the suicide note also clearly suggested that it was not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there was no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased. - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set aside the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand for money by the accused-appellant and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the accused- appellant. This Court observed as follows: “36. It could further be seen from the evidence on record that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of commission of suicide is about two months. As such, there is nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48 hours between the accused telling the deceased “to go and die” and the deceased “committing suicide”. As such, this Court held that there was no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased.” (emphasis supplied)

#26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.

#27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows: impossible instigated “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, the appellants conclude deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.

#12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” (emphasis supplied)

#28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana16, observed as follows:- “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 abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC 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, conviction terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable.” (emphasis supplied)

#37. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 years has lost - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.

#38. In the result, we pass the following order:- i. The present appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed on 17th October 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021 and the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 24th December, 2020 in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 are quashed and set aside; and iii. The appellants are discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.

#39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

#10. In Mohit Singhal’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under: - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 “7. The suicide note records respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-. According to the deceased, he had paid more than half of the amount to Sandeep. The suicide note records that as he could not pay the rest of the money, the first appellant came to his house and started abusing him. He stated that the first appellant had assaulted him, and therefore, he complained to the police. He further noted that the business of giving money on interest was prospering. He stated that the third respondent is not a prudent woman, and due to her habit of intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped in this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that the first appellant has made his life a hell.

#8. According the complaint of respondent, the incident in her shop of the first appellant threatening and assaulting her and her husband was on 15th June 2017. After that, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by Sandeep to the deceased on 27th June 2017. The suicide note was written three days after that, on 30th June 2017. The deceased committed suicide three days thereafter. Neither in the complaint of the third respondent nor in the suicide note, it is alleged that after 15th June 2017, the appellants or Sandeep either met or spoke to the third respondent and her deceased husband.

#9. Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 of the IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing, reads thus: - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 “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. 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.” (underline supplied)

#10. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

#11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 the payment of the amount borrowed by respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.

#12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

#13. Accordingly, we set aside impugned judgment and quash the summoning order dated 23rd January 2019 in Criminal Case No. 454 of 2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, District Dehradun. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”

#11. In Rohini Sudarshan’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under: “7. Having heard the arguments of both counsels and after perusing the record, we find that the only question that needs to be determined in the instant - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 case is whether the alleged conduct of the appellant- accused prima facie attracts Section 306 of IPC, to continue the proceedings of Trial Court against appellant. Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC read as: “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. It must be read with Section 107 of IPC which explains the meaning of Abetment, which reads as:

#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, by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is 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. - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” facilitate

#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 the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.

#9. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan2, this court explained the concept of abetment along with necessary ingredient for offence under Section 306 of IPC 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 (2010) 12 SCC 190 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 this 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.” - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.3, this court explained the parameters of Section 306 in following words: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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 (2010) 1 SCC 707 accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

#13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

#11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh4, while explaining the meaning of ‘Instigation’, this court stated that: - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 “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 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. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually to be follow, cannot be said instigation.”

#12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarized by this court in recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab.

#13. After carefully considering 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 - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 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.

#14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC are existing.

#15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The application for discharge is allowed.”

#12. Similarly, in Prabhat Kumar Mishra’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:

#18. The parameters required to bring an act or omission by the person charged within the purview of the offence under Section 306 IPC have been elaborated by this Court time and again and a few of these judgments are quoted below for ready reference.

#19. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.2 in almost similar circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The relevant observations from the said judgment are reproduced as under:- “4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of his employment, he had been posted at various worksites of - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 in a two years he sent Company and on 11-9-1999 he was transferred to the worksite of the Company's stores located at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata. It seems that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab Kumar Nag did not join duty and after a period of letter of resignation written in his own hand wherein he expressed his grievance of stagnancy of salary and also alleged that he was a victim of unfortunate circumstances. The Company accepted his resignation with immediate effect. On 16-2-2001, a dead body was found at the railway tracks near Ballygunge Railway Station and it was revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar Nag. His brother went to the office where Pranab Kumar Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag was released to his brother after the post-mortem examination on 19-2-2001. After a period of two months, a complaint was lodged before the police post on the basis of a suicide note allegedly recovered from the dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the appellant and some others. A translated copy of the suicide note is produced before us by the appellant. We have carefully read the alleged suicide note. The substance of this suicide note is that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag alleged that appellant Netai Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee several wrongdoings (he has shown as a type of torture) and at the end of the letter, a reference is also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and Netai Dutta alleging that he reported certain incidents to them. A reading of the letter would show that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag was not very much satisfied with the working conditions in the office. In the letter he has stated that he the workplace sometimes throughout the day and night and he had to remain in the company of some drivers who had been sometimes in drunken condition at about one o'clock or two o'clock in the night. It to be at engaged - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 is also alleged that the drivers who had been present at the workplace had been having non- vegetarian food. He also complained that he had to work even on Sundays. He further stated workplace at 8 o'clock in the evening and all the restaurants were closed and that he reported the matter to the present appellant. that one day he could for delay in paying salary

#5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, the contours of may also come within “abetment”. 107 - 52 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 is alleged

#6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby to have the appellant herein committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.

#7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.”

#20. In the case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3, this Court held as below:- “36. We would like to deal with the concept of “abetment”. Section 306 of the Code deals with “abetment of suicide” which reads as under: - 53 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 “306.Abetment of suicide. —If suicide, commits person 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. itself

#37. The word “suicide” nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

#38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.

#39. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under: “107.Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do 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 pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under: takes place - 54 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 Explanation

2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in (2011) 3 SCC 626 order to facilitate the commission of that act, commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. facilitates thereby

#40. The learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], in which a three- Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.

#41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “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 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 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. - 55 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.

#42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

#43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided facts and circumstances. the basis of its own - 56 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024

#44. 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.

#45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

#46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 361] this Court has held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the complaint.

#47. In a recent judgment of this Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628], this Court quashed the conviction under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.

#48. In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation, there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14-1- 2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18- 1-2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was ordinary hypersensitive undoubtedly - 57 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question whether the appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner? to be answered that remains

#49. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record and the law, which has been declared by this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the appellants are not even remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC. It may be relevant to mention that criminal proceedings against the husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari (A-3) are pending adjudication. ****** the exercise of

#62. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law in a series of enunciated by this Court decisions relating extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases - 58 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 wherein such power should be exercised : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “102…(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. the uncontroverted (3) Where allegations made the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected the same do not in support of the commission of any disclose offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that - 59 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 proceeding against the accused. sufficient ground (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. instituted) the proceeding (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” *****

#65. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122] observed thus : (SCC p. 128, para 8) “8. … It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of quashing proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the - 60 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” *****

#68. In the light of the settled legal position, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charges under Section 306 IPC against them. The High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the appellants who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 IPC should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial. As a result, the charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellants are quashed.”

#21. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case is entirely based on the suicide note left behind by the deceased before committing suicide. On a minute perusal of the suicide note, we do not find that the contents thereof indicate any act or omission on the part of the accused appellant which could make him responsible for abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC.”

#13. Recently, in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – 2025 INSC 46, the Apex Court has held as under: “19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case - 61 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.

#20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings - 62 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section

306.”

#14. Similarly, in the case of Ayyub and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – 2025 INSC 168, the Apex Court has held as under:

#19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for - 63 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

#20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76.

#21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with - 64 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of process.”

#15. As stated supra, apart from the fact that the impugned complaint, FIR and death note were not sufficient to indicate that there was any instigation by the petitioner so as to constitute a proximate link or nexus or cause for the purpose of alleged suicide committed by the son of respondent No.2, so as to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, respondent No.2 himself had given/submitted a letter of undertaking unequivocally stating that the petitioner was not responsible for the demise of his son.

#16. Under these circumstances, the absence of necessary ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide committed by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that merely because the petitioner is said to have called the son of respondent No.2 to bring his parents along for the purpose of issuance of Transfer Certificate since the said student was guilty of vandalizing the School and its infrastructure, it cannot be said that the petitioner was instrumental in driving the deceased to such an extent that he was left with no option but to commit suicide so as to - 65 - NC: 2025:KHC:1120 CRL.P No. 5946 of 2024 make the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged against him and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

#17. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in FIR in Crime No.144/2024 of Byndoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bainduru, Udupi District, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MCR/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30