(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) 25th July, 2025 Ashok Goyal and Others ………… v. State Of Uttarakhand

are that an FIR was lodged on 11.12.2014 by Respondent no.2 (the mother of deceased Mamta), alleging that Mamta, who was married to applicant No.3 (son of applicant nos.1 and 2) on 09.02.2004, was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in- laws. It is alleged that on 09.12.2014, the deceased informed her sister on the phone that she was being harassed and intended to go to Alwar. Later that day, her in-laws allegedly informed the complainant that Mamta had died by suicide. Based on these allegations, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted a charge- sheet, and the trial court took cognizance under Section 306 IPC. Hence, this application.

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicants would submit that applicant no.1 is the father-in- law, applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law, and applicant no.3 is the husband of the deceased. She would further submit that applicant no.3 has been suffering from a neurological disorder since 2009 and has been under continuous treatment, during 2 which time the deceased had accompanied him to Mumbai for medical consultations on several occasions in 2014.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would further submit that there are no specific allegations of instigation or abetment by the applicants and on the contrary, the applicants had created several fixed deposits in the name of the deceased, allowed her to pursue education after marriage, and shared a cordial relationship with her. Despite this, the investigating officer filed a charge- sheet without a proper and fair investigation, and the learned trial court passed the summoning order without applying judicial mind.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the applicants immediately took the deceased to the hospital, where she was declared dead by the Doctor, and also ensured a post- mortem was conducted; that, the applicants themselves informed the deceased’s parental family and police about her death. It is also contended that there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment 3 within the matrimonial home; that, the deceased and applicant no.3 had two sons born in 2005 and 2006; that, the neurological condition of applicant no.3 precluded any plausible involvement abetting suicide.

6. Learned senior counsel relies on the judgment in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any intentional aiding or instigation, the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be made out. It is further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients of abetment.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the aforesaid submissions on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against applicants; that, Investigating Officer after thorough investigation has submitted charge-sheet and the learned trial court after applying its judicial mind has passed the summoning order, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief at this stage. 4

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. For proper appreciation of the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 306 of I.P.C., 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.”

10. As per Section 107 IPC, abetment requires one of the following:

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. 5

11. A combined reading of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC makes it clear that to prosecute someone under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of abetment either by instigating, conspiring, or intentionally helping the person to die by suicide.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, and Sanju alias Sanjai Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998, emphasized that a mere allegation of harassment without direct and proximate instigation or abetment is insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of Kerala vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair, AIR 2015 SC 3351, the Court reiterated that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, prosecution must establish mens rea and a direct or active act leading the deceased to commit suicide.

14. In the present case, there is no material to suggest that the applicants either instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide. No 6 proximate or overt act is attributable to them that would satisfy the essential elements of Section 306 IPC.

15. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the applicant is suffering from a neurological disease. It is also undisputed that the deceased, Mamta, had accompanied her husband to Bombay on multiple occasions for his treatment. There is no allegation or material on record indicating any act of cruelty by the applicants. Furthermore, there is not even an iota of evidence to suggest that the applicants were actively or passively involved in instigating or abetting the deceased Mamta to commit suicide.

16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

17. In view of the above, the present C-482 application is allowed. The cognizance/summoning order dated 19.11.2015 under Section 306 I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7 1619 of 2015 ‘State Vs. Ashok Goyal & Others’ pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Mamta (ALOK MAHRA, J.)

25.07.2025 8