Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 04.05.2025 as well as summoning order dated 05.07.2025 and entire proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No.78 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-I/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged the present FIR on dated 27.01.2025 in pursuance of incident dated 25.01.2025 against applicants alleging that marriage of Surendra Singh (now deceased) who is brother of opposite party no.2/informant was solemnized on dated 24.06.2020 with applicant no.1 according to Hindu rituals and after marriage, applicant nos.1 and 2 started demanding various ornaments and cash from Surendra Singh due to which he gone into depression. When Surendra Singh showed his inability to do the same, applicant no.1 went her parental house thereafter Surendra Singh went to take his wife/applicant no.1 at his in-laws house, applicant no.3 committed assault on Surendra Singh. It has also been alleged through narration of the FIR that applicant no.1 was having illicit relation with applicant no.3 which was seen by Surendra Singh on his mobile and when he tried to understand his wife, all the applicants threatened him and due to above reasons, he committed suicide on dated 25.01.2025. After lodging of the FIR, investigation was started which culminated into submission of chargesheet against applicants under Section 108 BNS whereupon cognizance of offence was taken by learned court concerned vide order dated 05.07.2025 which impugned the present 2 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025 application. the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the entire criminal impugned chargsheet and proceedings of cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case since they have not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 108 BNS comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 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 applicants to corroborate them with the alleged offence. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that as per dying declaration of the deceased, he himself admitted that he was living separately with applicant no.1 from 2022 and as such, no offence as alleged is made out. Learned counsel for applicants further contended that earlier an FIR bearing Case Crime No.964 of 2022 was lodged by applicant no.1 against six persons including the deceased under Sections 498-A, 377, 354, 354-Kha, 376, 511, 323, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act wherein chargesheet has already been filed in the year 2023 and being annoyed with the same, the present FIR was lodged implicating the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants 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 06.03.2021 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 applicants placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Ors Vs. State of Gujrat [2025 (2) SCC 116], Patel Babubhai Manohardas Vs. State of Gujrat [2025 SCC Online SC 503] and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2025 SCC Online SC 1725].

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of submitting that allegations levelled against applicants through narration of the FIR, clearly makes out that applicants were 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 applicants, cannot be established at this stage when the trial is yet to be concluded. 3 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025

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 offence under Section 108 BNS, the prosecution must establish, prima facie, that the deceased committed suicide and that the accused abetted the commission of that suicide. In the instant case, the narration of FIR, the dying declaration and the witnesses' statement allege a continuous and persistent course of conduct of harassment and mental torture 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 offence 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 applicants are concerned, having greatest regards to the same, those were cases 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 applicants 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, is a question of fact that can only be 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, statement recorded during investigation as well as dying declaration in shape of video and looking into the facts of the 4 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025 case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. 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. November 18, 2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 04.05.2025 as well as summoning order dated 05.07.2025 and entire proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No.78 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-I/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged the present FIR on dated 27.01.2025 in pursuance of incident dated 25.01.2025 against applicants alleging that marriage of Surendra Singh (now deceased) who is brother of opposite party no.2/informant was solemnized on dated 24.06.2020 with applicant no.1 according to Hindu rituals and after marriage, applicant nos.1 and 2 started demanding various ornaments and cash from Surendra Singh due to which he gone into depression. When Surendra Singh showed his inability to do the same, applicant no.1 went her parental house thereafter Surendra Singh went to take his wife/applicant no.1 at his in-laws house, applicant no.3 committed assault on Surendra Singh. It has also been alleged through narration of the FIR that applicant no.1 was having illicit relation with applicant no.3 which was seen by Surendra Singh on his mobile and when he tried to understand his wife, all the applicants threatened him and due to above reasons, he committed suicide on dated 25.01.2025. After lodging of the FIR, investigation was started which culminated into submission of chargesheet against applicants under Section 108 BNS whereupon cognizance of offence was taken by learned court concerned vide order dated 05.07.2025 which impugned the present 2 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025 application. the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicants has challenged the entire criminal impugned chargsheet and proceedings of cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case since they have not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 108 BNS comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 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 applicants to corroborate them with the alleged offence. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that as per dying declaration of the deceased, he himself admitted that he was living separately with applicant no.1 from 2022 and as such, no offence as alleged is made out. Learned counsel for applicants further contended that earlier an FIR bearing Case Crime No.964 of 2022 was lodged by applicant no.1 against six persons including the deceased under Sections 498-A, 377, 354, 354-Kha, 376, 511, 323, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act wherein chargesheet has already been filed in the year 2023 and being annoyed with the same, the present FIR was lodged implicating the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants 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 06.03.2021 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 applicants placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Ors Vs. State of Gujrat [2025 (2) SCC 116], Patel Babubhai Manohardas Vs. State of Gujrat [2025 SCC Online SC 503] and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2025 SCC Online SC 1725].

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of submitting that allegations levelled against applicants through narration of the FIR, clearly makes out that applicants were 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 applicants, cannot be established at this stage when the trial is yet to be concluded. 3 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025

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 offence under Section 108 BNS, the prosecution must establish, prima facie, that the deceased committed suicide and that the accused abetted the commission of that suicide. In the instant case, the narration of FIR, the dying declaration and the witnesses' statement allege a continuous and persistent course of conduct of harassment and mental torture 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 offence 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 applicants are concerned, having greatest regards to the same, those were cases 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 applicants 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, is a question of fact that can only be 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, statement recorded during investigation as well as dying declaration in shape of video and looking into the facts of the 4 NA528 No. 31688 of 2025 case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. 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. November 18, 2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)