State v. Ashutosh Baranwal), arising out of Case Crime No

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.113 of 2025 (State Vs. Ashutosh Baranwal), arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2024, under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Sadat, District- Ghazipur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

3. As per the prosecution story, marriage of daughter of respondent no.2 and the applicant was fixed and it was agreed between the parents of the applicant as well as victim (deceased) that after the marriage of elder sister of the applicant, their marriage would be solemnized, but after the marriage of elder sister of applicant, the parent of applicant started avoiding with regard to their marriage and yet applicant used to see and communicate with the deceased. Thereafter, they came to know that marriage of applicant was fixed with someone else and after hearing the said news, daughter of respondent no.2 used to remain perplexed and on 15.07.2024 after attending the meeting of a group, she committed suicide; on account of which first information report was lodged by respondent no.2 being Case Crime No.79 of 2024 in pursuance to section 108 BNS, wherein after conducting detail investigation and considering the post-mortem report conducted on the body of the deceased, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant in pursuance to section 108 BNS, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken by learned court concerned vide order dated 23.12.2024, which impugned the present application. 2 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the entire criminal proceedings of impugned chargsheet and cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since he has not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC/108 BNS comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC/108 BNS, there must be a clear intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the commission of suicide, whereas there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate them with the alleged offence. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there is hardly any suicide note or any dying declaration of the deceased alleging anything against applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet in the present case whereupon cognizance of offence was taken vide impugned order dated 23.12.2024 by learned court concerned and as such, the same may be set aside along with entire proceedings of the present case.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4764], Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra [2010 (1) SCC 7580], Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal No.1919 of 2013, decided on 13.02.2025], Patel Babubhai Manohardas and ors. Vs. State of Gujrat [ 2025 INSC 322], Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka [ 2024 INSC 908], Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2018, decided on 09.09.2025] and Vikas Chandra Vs. State of U.P. [2024 INSC 261].

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way submitting that allegations levelled against applicant through narration of the FIR, clearly makes out that applicant was directly and indirectly involved in the acts of humiliation and harassment which led the deceased to commit suicide. Learned AGA further submitted that the question of mens rea attributable to applicant, cannot be established at this stage when the trial is yet to be concluded.

7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of entire material available on record, the Court notes that for an 3 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 offence under Section 306 IPC/108 BNS, the prosecution must establish, prima facie, that the deceased committed suicide and that the accused abetted the commission of that suicide. Abetment, as defined in Section 107 IPC/45 BNS, involves instigating a person, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the doing of that thing. In the instant case, the allegations are not merely of trivial disputes or ordinary quarrels of life since accused-applicant disconnects his relation with the deceased with regard to perform marriage in future after communicating and wandering with her for two years and fixed his marriage with someone else and this conduct of the applicant and his parents put mental torture upon the deceased, which must have provoked the deceased to commit suicide but the same shall be determined after conducting trial not at the state of taking cognizance of offence.

8. At the stage of taking cognizance of offence, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241, it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.

9. In sofar as the said judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant are concerned, having greatest regards to the same, those were cases decided after a full trial or where the allegations, even on their face, did not amount to instigation. Here, the allegations, are of such a nature that they prima facie suggest that the applicant goaded, provoked, or incited the deceased to take the extreme step. Whether this alleged harassment was of such intensity as to constitute instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 IPC/45 BNS is a question of fact that can only be 4 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 determined by learned trial court after evaluating the evidence in its entirety and not at the stage of taking cognizance of offence.

10. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, post-mortem reprot, statement recorded during investigation and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submission made at the bar, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.

11. Consequently, the application is found to be devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed

12. However, it is made clear that learned trial court concerned shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, which are solely for the purpose of deciding this application. October 31, 2025 Saif (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.113 of 2025 (State Vs. Ashutosh Baranwal), arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2024, under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Sadat, District- Ghazipur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

3. As per the prosecution story, marriage of daughter of respondent no.2 and the applicant was fixed and it was agreed between the parents of the applicant as well as victim (deceased) that after the marriage of elder sister of the applicant, their marriage would be solemnized, but after the marriage of elder sister of applicant, the parent of applicant started avoiding with regard to their marriage and yet applicant used to see and communicate with the deceased. Thereafter, they came to know that marriage of applicant was fixed with someone else and after hearing the said news, daughter of respondent no.2 used to remain perplexed and on 15.07.2024 after attending the meeting of a group, she committed suicide; on account of which first information report was lodged by respondent no.2 being Case Crime No.79 of 2024 in pursuance to section 108 BNS, wherein after conducting detail investigation and considering the post-mortem report conducted on the body of the deceased, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant in pursuance to section 108 BNS, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken by learned court concerned vide order dated 23.12.2024, which impugned the present application. 2 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the entire criminal proceedings of impugned chargsheet and cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since he has not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC/108 BNS comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC/108 BNS, there must be a clear intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the commission of suicide, whereas there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate them with the alleged offence. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there is hardly any suicide note or any dying declaration of the deceased alleging anything against applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet in the present case whereupon cognizance of offence was taken vide impugned order dated 23.12.2024 by learned court concerned and as such, the same may be set aside along with entire proceedings of the present case.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4764], Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra [2010 (1) SCC 7580], Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal No.1919 of 2013, decided on 13.02.2025], Patel Babubhai Manohardas and ors. Vs. State of Gujrat [ 2025 INSC 322], Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka [ 2024 INSC 908], Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No.1044 of 2018, decided on 09.09.2025] and Vikas Chandra Vs. State of U.P. [2024 INSC 261].

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way submitting that allegations levelled against applicant through narration of the FIR, clearly makes out that applicant was directly and indirectly involved in the acts of humiliation and harassment which led the deceased to commit suicide. Learned AGA further submitted that the question of mens rea attributable to applicant, cannot be established at this stage when the trial is yet to be concluded.

7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of entire material available on record, the Court notes that for an 3 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 offence under Section 306 IPC/108 BNS, the prosecution must establish, prima facie, that the deceased committed suicide and that the accused abetted the commission of that suicide. Abetment, as defined in Section 107 IPC/45 BNS, involves instigating a person, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the doing of that thing. In the instant case, the allegations are not merely of trivial disputes or ordinary quarrels of life since accused-applicant disconnects his relation with the deceased with regard to perform marriage in future after communicating and wandering with her for two years and fixed his marriage with someone else and this conduct of the applicant and his parents put mental torture upon the deceased, which must have provoked the deceased to commit suicide but the same shall be determined after conducting trial not at the state of taking cognizance of offence.

8. At the stage of taking cognizance of offence, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241, it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.

9. In sofar as the said judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant are concerned, having greatest regards to the same, those were cases decided after a full trial or where the allegations, even on their face, did not amount to instigation. Here, the allegations, are of such a nature that they prima facie suggest that the applicant goaded, provoked, or incited the deceased to take the extreme step. Whether this alleged harassment was of such intensity as to constitute instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 IPC/45 BNS is a question of fact that can only be 4 NA528 No. 24660 of 2025 determined by learned trial court after evaluating the evidence in its entirety and not at the stage of taking cognizance of offence.

10. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, post-mortem reprot, statement recorded during investigation and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submission made at the bar, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.

11. Consequently, the application is found to be devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed

12. However, it is made clear that learned trial court concerned shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, which are solely for the purpose of deciding this application. October 31, 2025 Saif (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)