High Court

1. Heard Mr. Dewendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.35184 of 2024 (State vs. Dinesh), arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Sikariganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against six named accused including the applicant through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant on 02.06.2014 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the marriage, the opposite party no.2 had given the dowry as per his capacity, but the family members of her in-laws including the husband were not happy with the dowry and they tortured her for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand i.e. one motorcycle. The aforesaid was shared by the deceased when she came to her parent's place. It has further been alleged that on 22.08.2022, the daughter of opposite party no.2 has been done to death by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of dowry demand, for which an application has been moved by the opposite party no.2 before the police authorities, but when nothing was done, an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved and the present FIR has been lodged. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant under Section 306 IPC. Pursuant to which, the applicant has been summoned. Hence the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations after a delay of nearly three months through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. without giving any plausible explanation for the same. From the version of FIR as well as the statement of charge sheet witnesses, no offence under Section 306 IPC has been made out against the applicant. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to ante- mortem injury. He further submits that the applicant was not present at the time of death of the deceased. The documents in this regard have been placed at Page 99 of the application to prove the same.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1169 submits that Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those persons who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct that directly led to the person taking his/her own life. He further submits that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is a well established legal principle that the present case is of clear mens rea-- the intention to abet the act should be there.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 289, wherein the Apex Court has relied that mere uttering the words "go and die" will not constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Apex Court has further held as under:- "…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events…."

7. Thus, in view of the above, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the impugned charge sheet and summoning order as well as the entire proceeding may liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that from the statement of daughter of the deceased; Priyansi as well as Amit, it is clear that there were frequent scuffles between husband and wife. The reasons for the same as stated by daughter of the deceased is that her father had objected to the deceased talking with one boy named Amit and there were repeated fights between the two for the aforesaid reason. The other witnesses, Vijayi, Indal and Ramkisun have also spoken about the frequent fights between the husband and wife, whenever he used to come from the work place to meet his wife, who resides alongwith children separately from her in- laws. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that such circumstance has been created by the applicant leaving no other option for the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that the Court sitting in jurisdiction U/s 528 BNSS cannot exercise the power to conduct a mini trial to conclude evidences to prove the case under Section 306 IPC. The statements given by the charge sheet witnesses, especially the daughter of the deceased, go to prove that the repeated incidents of fights, especially those related to not talking to a boy, may have created circumstances that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide, which appears sufficient at this stage to constitute a case under Section 306 IPC. From the statements, the circumstances indicate that the fights were not isolated incidents of anger, but persistent and repeated altercations which took place both over the phone and whenever the applicant visited his wife and children.

9. Learned AGA further submits that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim. At this stage, the judgements as relied by the counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present facts of the case.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

11. It would be appropriate to refer Section 306 IPC, which reads as under:- "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

12. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to Section 107 IPC, 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; or (Secondly)—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

13. In the present case, the applicant 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 an instigation in the case can be inferred.

14. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. From the details of suicide note, which was sent on the mobile phone of the informant by her husband through mobile phone of her father-in-law, prove the compelling circumstances and continued act of annoying the deceased, which can be inferred as instigation/abettment to commit suicide.

15. In the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been held that if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.

16. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

18. In such a situation where the applicant has created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide and perusal of the averments made in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and the conduct of the applicant in a heinous offence where a person had lost his life, this Court is of the opinion that the relief as prayed by the applicant cannot be granted.

19. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.07.2024 and cognizance order dated 08.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

20. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Jitendra/-

1. Heard Mr. Dewendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.35184 of 2024 (State vs. Dinesh), arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Sikariganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against six named accused including the applicant through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant on 02.06.2014 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the marriage, the opposite party no.2 had given the dowry as per his capacity, but the family members of her in-laws including the husband were not happy with the dowry and they tortured her for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand i.e. one motorcycle. The aforesaid was shared by the deceased when she came to her parent's place. It has further been alleged that on 22.08.2022, the daughter of opposite party no.2 has been done to death by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of dowry demand, for which an application has been moved by the opposite party no.2 before the police authorities, but when nothing was done, an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved and the present FIR has been lodged. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant under Section 306 IPC. Pursuant to which, the applicant has been summoned. Hence the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations after a delay of nearly three months through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. without giving any plausible explanation for the same. From the version of FIR as well as the statement of charge sheet witnesses, no offence under Section 306 IPC has been made out against the applicant. As per post-mortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to ante- mortem injury. He further submits that the applicant was not present at the time of death of the deceased. The documents in this regard have been placed at Page 99 of the application to prove the same.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1169 submits that Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those persons who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct that directly led to the person taking his/her own life. He further submits that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is a well established legal principle that the present case is of clear mens rea-- the intention to abet the act should be there.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 289, wherein the Apex Court has relied that mere uttering the words "go and die" will not constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Apex Court has further held as under:- "…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events…."

7. Thus, in view of the above, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the impugned charge sheet and summoning order as well as the entire proceeding may liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that from the statement of daughter of the deceased; Priyansi as well as Amit, it is clear that there were frequent scuffles between husband and wife. The reasons for the same as stated by daughter of the deceased is that her father had objected to the deceased talking with one boy named Amit and there were repeated fights between the two for the aforesaid reason. The other witnesses, Vijayi, Indal and Ramkisun have also spoken about the frequent fights between the husband and wife, whenever he used to come from the work place to meet his wife, who resides alongwith children separately from her in- laws. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that such circumstance has been created by the applicant leaving no other option for the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that the Court sitting in jurisdiction U/s 528 BNSS cannot exercise the power to conduct a mini trial to conclude evidences to prove the case under Section 306 IPC. The statements given by the charge sheet witnesses, especially the daughter of the deceased, go to prove that the repeated incidents of fights, especially those related to not talking to a boy, may have created circumstances that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide, which appears sufficient at this stage to constitute a case under Section 306 IPC. From the statements, the circumstances indicate that the fights were not isolated incidents of anger, but persistent and repeated altercations which took place both over the phone and whenever the applicant visited his wife and children.

9. Learned AGA further submits that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim. At this stage, the judgements as relied by the counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present facts of the case.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

11. It would be appropriate to refer Section 306 IPC, which reads as under:- "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

12. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to Section 107 IPC, 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; or (Secondly)—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

13. In the present case, the applicant 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 an instigation in the case can be inferred.

14. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. From the details of suicide note, which was sent on the mobile phone of the informant by her husband through mobile phone of her father-in-law, prove the compelling circumstances and continued act of annoying the deceased, which can be inferred as instigation/abettment to commit suicide.

15. In the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been held that if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.

16. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

18. In such a situation where the applicant has created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide and perusal of the averments made in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and the conduct of the applicant in a heinous offence where a person had lost his life, this Court is of the opinion that the relief as prayed by the applicant cannot be granted.

19. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.07.2024 and cognizance order dated 08.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

20. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Jitendra/-