Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy

286/2025 (State Vs. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR No. 164/2024, under Sections 306 IPC & section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Haidergarh, District-Barabanki, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki; and Summoning Order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Barabanki, in Case No. 286/2025, (State v. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/20 Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki; and the charge- sheet dated 10.09.2024 filed in Case No. 286/2025, (State v. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/2024, under Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the informant had arranged the marriage of his daughter with the applicant no. 3, which was scheduled to be held in the month of November, 2024, but, due to some differences, the same could not be materialized and subsequently, that was 2 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 broken off. He added that subsequently, the marriage of the applicant no. 3 was arranged by his family members with some other girl and on the date of 'Tilak Ceremony', the deceased hanged herself, with a ceiling fan, while leaving a suicide note, blaming her family members for being responsible for the incident. He submits that the death occurred in the house of the opposite party no. 2/informant and the cause of death is Axphysicia due to anti- mortem hanging.

4. He argued that infact this is not a case where any kind of abetment is done on the part of the applicants, so as in all the eventualities, the same would resulted into commit suicide. Further submitted that having at a glace of the whole story, a man of common prudence cannot say that there is any abetment to commit suicide rather, this can be an unnatural behaviour of a person, who commits suicide in such a situation.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1725 and has referred paragraphs nos. 20 to 24 of the said Judgment, which are quoted hereinunder :- "20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gaval J., as he then was) in the following manner: "14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

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 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 3 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 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."

21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of Instigating a person or intentionally alding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or Instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.

22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden Impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on Individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or sald; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.

24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a rustic 4 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. "

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that this is a case where there was no contact with the applicants to the deceased except apart a chat with applicant no. 3 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even in a case, while rebuking, it has been stated that 'Go and kill yourself'', no offence can be said to be committed under section 306 of I.P.C.,unless there is proof of direct or indirect act of instigation of suicide, which is in close proximity of the suicide. He submits that the case of the present applicants is on better footings and therefore, the whole criminal proceedings vitiates in the eyes of law.

7. In support of his contentions, he has also relied upon the Judgment and Order dated 29-11-2024 rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sandi Vs State of Karanataka through SHO Kakati Police (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012) and has referred paragraph no. 28, which reads under :- "28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide".

8. Placing reliance on the abovesaid ratio, he submits that the case of the applicants is squarely covered, thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding may be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that prior to committing suicide, a suicide note has been written by the deceased and further there is a chat between the 5 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 applicant no. 3 and the deceased and therefore, there is sufficient material against the applicants so as to constitute the offence under section 306 of I.P.C., thus, no interference is warranted.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on records, it transpires that after the arrangement of the marriage, the same was broken off and again the marriage of the applicant no. 3 was arranged with someone else than the deceased, which resulted into committal of suicide and prima-facie, the ingredients of section 306 of I.P.C. do not attract in the present matter, thus, it requires consideration.

11. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

12. Steps be taken within a week.

13. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

14. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27-10-2025.

15. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file their Counter Affidavits

16. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/20 Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki; shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned. September 2, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

286/2025 (State Vs. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR No. 164/2024, under Sections 306 IPC & section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Haidergarh, District-Barabanki, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki; and Summoning Order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Barabanki, in Case No. 286/2025, (State v. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/20 Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki; and the charge- sheet dated 10.09.2024 filed in Case No. 286/2025, (State v. Rajesh Awasthi & Ors.), arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/2024, under Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the informant had arranged the marriage of his daughter with the applicant no. 3, which was scheduled to be held in the month of November, 2024, but, due to some differences, the same could not be materialized and subsequently, that was 2 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 broken off. He added that subsequently, the marriage of the applicant no. 3 was arranged by his family members with some other girl and on the date of 'Tilak Ceremony', the deceased hanged herself, with a ceiling fan, while leaving a suicide note, blaming her family members for being responsible for the incident. He submits that the death occurred in the house of the opposite party no. 2/informant and the cause of death is Axphysicia due to anti- mortem hanging.

4. He argued that infact this is not a case where any kind of abetment is done on the part of the applicants, so as in all the eventualities, the same would resulted into commit suicide. Further submitted that having at a glace of the whole story, a man of common prudence cannot say that there is any abetment to commit suicide rather, this can be an unnatural behaviour of a person, who commits suicide in such a situation.

5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1725 and has referred paragraphs nos. 20 to 24 of the said Judgment, which are quoted hereinunder :- "20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gaval J., as he then was) in the following manner: "14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

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 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 3 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 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."

21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of Instigating a person or intentionally alding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or Instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.

22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden Impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on Individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or sald; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.

24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a rustic 4 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. "

6. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that this is a case where there was no contact with the applicants to the deceased except apart a chat with applicant no. 3 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even in a case, while rebuking, it has been stated that 'Go and kill yourself'', no offence can be said to be committed under section 306 of I.P.C.,unless there is proof of direct or indirect act of instigation of suicide, which is in close proximity of the suicide. He submits that the case of the present applicants is on better footings and therefore, the whole criminal proceedings vitiates in the eyes of law.

7. In support of his contentions, he has also relied upon the Judgment and Order dated 29-11-2024 rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sandi Vs State of Karanataka through SHO Kakati Police (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012) and has referred paragraph no. 28, which reads under :- "28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide".

8. Placing reliance on the abovesaid ratio, he submits that the case of the applicants is squarely covered, thus, submission is that the criminal proceeding may be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that prior to committing suicide, a suicide note has been written by the deceased and further there is a chat between the 5 A482 No. 7312 of 2025 applicant no. 3 and the deceased and therefore, there is sufficient material against the applicants so as to constitute the offence under section 306 of I.P.C., thus, no interference is warranted.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on records, it transpires that after the arrangement of the marriage, the same was broken off and again the marriage of the applicant no. 3 was arranged with someone else than the deceased, which resulted into committal of suicide and prima-facie, the ingredients of section 306 of I.P.C. do not attract in the present matter, thus, it requires consideration.

11. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

12. Steps be taken within a week.

13. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

14. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27-10-2025.

15. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file their Counter Affidavits

16. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of arising out of FIR bearing No. 164/20 Sections 306 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Haidergarh, District Barabanki; shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned. September 2, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)