Preeti Gautam and another …… v. State of Uttarakhand & Others

platforms and sent it to her acquaintances. Aggrieved by the said acts, applicant No.1 lodged an online complaint through the IGRS portal on 27.03.2023 and also submitted a written complaint the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun. In consequence of the said complaint, the Cyber Cell deleted the objectionable contents; however, no legal action was initiated against the deceased. Subsequently, applicant No.1 withdrew her complaint on 29.03.2023.

3. Thereafter, on 03.04.2023, the deceased allegedly committed suicide. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 and the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 306, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration, took cognizance under aforementioned sections and issued summons to the applicants. Aggrieved by the said charge sheet and the order of cognizance, the applicants have preferred the present C-482 application, contending that the same are illegal, perverse, and amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4. The learned counsel the applicants submits that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are wholly absent in the present case. For an offence of abetment to suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation, aid, or intentional provocation immediately 2 preceding the act of suicide. He submits that the deceased, in the instant case, was neither provoked nor instigated by applicant no. 1. On the contrary, it was the deceased who was blackmailing and threatening the applicant using her obscene photographs and videos. The act of suicide was a result of the deceased’s emotional distress and his unilateral desire to marry applicant no. 1, which cannot be construed as abetment in law.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants, in support of his submissions, has further placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 AIR Supreme Court 153, wherein the Court reiterated that mere emotional distress or rejection in a relationship cannot, by itself, constitute abetment to suicide unless there is clear and proximate evidence of instigation, aid, or an intentional act on the part of the accused leading directly to the commission of suicide.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the deceased had misused the trust and privacy of applicant no. 1 by recording and circulating her obscene photographs without consent, thereby committing serious offences himself. The learned counsel submits that the Applicant no. 1 had approached the authorities by lodging complaints, which were duly acted upon by the Cyber Cell. The entire sequence clearly establishes that applicant no. 1 was a victim of harassment and blackmailing by the deceased, not the perpetrator. Therefore, the finding of abetment against her is baseless and unsustainable. The learned counsel further submits that the only allegation against applicant no. 2 is a telephonic conversation with the SHO requesting deletion 3 of obscene material from the deceased’s mobile phone. There is no evidence of any threat, coercion, or instigation by applicant no. 2. The inclusion of applicant no. 2 under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is, therefore, wholly arbitrary and without any supporting material in the case diary or investigation papers.

7. The learned counsel the applicant vehemently argues that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in a casual and perfunctory manner, without considering the factual and legal aspects. He submits that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, failed to apply judicial mind to the material on record and passed the impugned order mechanically. The entire prosecution is an abuse of process, as the suicide of the deceased was the outcome of a failed relationship, not any instigation or abetment by the applicants. Compelling applicant no. 1 a government teacher with a respectable service record to face criminal trial for no fault of hers would cause irreparable injury and miscarriage of justice.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the state submits that during the course of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer collected concrete and sufficient evidence against the applicants, establishing their complicity in the offence. Upon perusal of the material placed before the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, after applying judicial mind, rightly took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC. The present petition, therefore, seeks to invite this Hon’ble Court to conduct a mini trial, which is impermissible in law. 4

9. The learned State counsel also submits that the applicant has wrongly impleaded the S.H.O., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as a party to the present proceedings. The entire investigation of FIR No. 10 of 2023, Police Station Agastyamuni, District Rudraprayag, was conducted the S.H.O., Agastyamuni, and not by the S.H.O., Kashipur. Hence, the applicant may be directed to delete the said party from the array of respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the State submits that the instant application is not maintainable as the applicants have raised purely factual pleas such as claims of blackmailing, creation of fake profiles, and withdrawal of complaints, which are matters of evidence to be established during trial. He submits that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not meant to assess disputed questions of fact or to re-appreciate evidence already examined by the trial court while taking cognizance. The learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, found sufficient prima facie evidence suggesting that the conduct of applicant no. 1 had a direct nexus with the act of suicide committed by the deceased. The suicide note, duly verified through FSL report, clearly contains expressions indicating mental harassment and emotional distress caused by the applicant. Hence, the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are made out at this stage. The contention that there was no abetment or instigation is a matter of defence, not grounds for quashing.

11. The learned counsel for the state contends applicants’ regarding obscene photographs, blackmailing, or monetary transactions were neither substantiated during investigation nor 5 supported by any credible material placed before the Investigating Officer. Such assertions are self-serving and cannot be relied upon in the absence of evidence. All such defenses can be raised only during the trial. The learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Court, at the stage of Section 482, is not required to weigh the sufficiency of evidence.

12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the state that the learned Magistrate has applied judicial mind to the material placed before her and passed the cognizance order dated 05.02.2024 accordance with law. The applicants have failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that since the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses commission of offences, the applicants’ only legal course is to appear before the trial court face trial. Therefore, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

13. The learned counsel for the applicant by means of their supplementary and rejoinder affidavit submits that the Investigating officer did not consider the fact that the present matter is a case of an unsuccessful love affair. He submits that if one of the partners in a love affair denies to get married with the other partner, it cannot be said that it is a case of abetment to commit suicide, which has occurred in the present case. The learned counsel submits that there was also a last “WhatsApp” conversation between the deceased and the applicant No.1, wherein the deceased had requested the applicant No.1 to meet him one last time and further stating that no one will blame the 6 applicant No.1 for any act of the deceased. He further submits that it has been mentioned in the FIR that the suicide note contained 9 pages, whereas the suicide note which has been submitted by the investigating officer along with the charge sheet contained 12 pages and the same suicide note appears to have been signed on the 9th page and closed on that very page. Thereafter it appears, that 3 more unsigned pages have been annexed later, which puts a cloud upon the trustworthiness of the suicide note.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of the material available on record, including the charge sheet, the suicide note, and the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate this court is of the opinion that the issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether, on the face of the material collected during investigation, the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are disclosed against the applicants and whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is now a settled position that to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear and specific evidence showing that the accused had instigated, aided, or intentionally provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution must establish the existence of a guilty intention and a proximate act leading directly to the suicide. Mere emotional distress, disappointment, or strained personal relations cannot be elevated to the level of abetment.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 AIR Supreme Court 153, has succinctly reiterated this principle. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment reads as 7 under: “25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society, and that the commission of such an offence (i.e., abetment to suicide) largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC. Merely because a person has been named in the suicide note or the deceased was emotionally disturbed owing to a strained relationship cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the accused had abetted the suicide.”

16. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, while explaining the scope of Section 306 IPC, has observed as follows: It thus manifest “21. the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.”

17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is clear that there is no proximate, continuous, or culpable nexus between the alleged acts of the applicants and the act of suicide committed by the deceased. It appears that the deceased had himself 8 engaged in unlawful conduct, including blackmail and threats, and the suicide occurred several days after the withdrawal of the complaint lodged by applicant no. 1. The acts of the applicants, therefore, cannot be construed as sustained incitement or abetment, and the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are clearly absent. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The materials on record reveal that the deceased and applicant no. 1 had developed a friendship through social media which later turned intimate. The deceased is alleged to have taken certain obscene photographs and videos of applicant no. 1 and later used them to blackmail her for money and threatened to circulate them among her acquaintances. It was in these circumstances that applicant no. 1 lodged an online complaint on 27.03.2023 and also addressed a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun. The Cyber Cell acted upon the complaint and deleted the objectionable content, and thereafter applicant no. 1 withdrew her complaint on 29.03.2023. The deceased committed suicide on 03.04.2023, several days later.

18. From the above sequence, there is nothing to indicate that applicant no. 1 had instigated, coerced, or intentionally provoked the deceased to take the extreme step. On the contrary, she appears to have been the victim of harassment and blackmail by the deceased and had only taken recourse to lawful remedies available under law. A lawful act, performed in good faith to protect one’s dignity and privacy, cannot be construed as an act of abetment. There is no material on record to suggest any mens rea or direct nexus between the actions of applicant no. 1 and the suicide committed by 9 the deceased. Insofar as applicant no. 2 is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he made a telephonic request to the Station House Officer for deletion of the obscene material from the deceased’s mobile phone. There is no allegation of threat, insult, or criminal intimidation attributable to him that may constitute offences under Sections 504 or 506 IPC. His implication, therefore, appears to be unjustified. The applicants have also drawn attention to the discrepancy in the suicide note, wherein the FIR mentions a note of nine pages whereas the charge sheet contains twelve pages, out of which only the first nine bear the signature of the deceased. The addition of three unsigned pages at the end casts a serious shadow on the authenticity and reliability of the document, particularly when it forms the principal basis of the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer appears not to have addressed this inconsistency in a satisfactory manner.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the materials on record, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicants. The learned Magistrate appears to have taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind to whether the facts and evidence actually satisfy the statutory requirements of Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

20. Applying the ratio of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi (supra) and other binding precedents, it is evident that the deceased’s act was the outcome of emotional turmoil and frustration arising from an 10 unsuccessful relationship, and not the result of any instigation or intentional act on the part of the applicants. Consequently, continuance proceedings pursuant the charge sheet and cognizance order would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.78 of 2024, State vs. Preeti Gautam and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, are hereby quashed. The charge-sheet and the cognizance order/summoning order against the applicants dated

05.02.2024 stand quashed.

21. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

06.11.2025 Ravi 11