Navdeep Singh Maan and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

following which his wife (Respondent No. 2) lodged FIR No. 0411 under Sections 306, 323, 504, and 34 IPC.

4. A charge-sheet (No. 01/2021) was filed on

22.01.2021, and cognisance was taken on 09.03.2021. The applicants contend the FIR and chargesheet are unfounded, lacking any material evidence of abetment under Section 306 IPC. They also assert that the underlying dispute is civil in nature and the suicide note does not satisfy the legal criteria for abetment.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Late Pradeep Maan and Respondent No. 2, Gitika Maan, had been married for about 14 years but had no children. It was also submitted that the applicants belong to a closely-knit family.

7. It was argued that ‘Hotel Maan’ was jointly purchased in the names of Applicant No. 1 and Late Pradeep Maan from the proceeds of ancestral land. However, it was solely managed and operated by the deceased, who enjoyed its income exclusively.

8. Although a joint bank account existed in the names of Applicant No. 1 and the deceased, learned counsel submitted that only the latter operated it. Late Pradeep Maan also independently ran separate ventures in travel and mobile communications. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. It was further contended that Applicant No. 1 provided financial assistance to the deceased during periods of financial distress. Counsel referred to car loan instalments for a vehicle purchased by the deceased, which were paid from Applicant No. 1’s account.

10. Learned counsel submitted that Applicants No. 1 and 2 had travelled to Canada in early 2020 and were delayed in returning due to the COVID-19 lockdown. During their absence, arrangements made for the care of Applicant No. 1’s children allegedly met with resistance from the deceased, necessitating police involvement. A Sale Deed from 2014, evidencing joint ownership of family assets, was placed on record.

11. The applicants contend that the FIR registered against them does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. They argue that even if the allegations in the FIR are assumed to be true, the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment to suicide) is not made out as it requires "something more than just usual pickering." Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Geo Varghese v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021, more specifically paragraph 22,wherein the court observed: - “22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 3 Ashish Naithani J. attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.”

12. The learned counsel further argues on the issue of mens rea, placing reliance on S.S. Chheena v Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another (2010) 12 SCC 190, where the court opines that while suicide by itself is not an offence, an attempt to commit suicide is an offence under section 309 of the IPC. The learned counsel referred to various other judgements before the court, passed by this High Court in Satish Goyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Dehradun and Another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2047 of 2022.

13. The applicants maintain that their prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and seek quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3451 of 2021.

14. Learned counsel for the State submitted that during the investigation, statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded from several witnesses, including Respondent No. 2, Ashima, Archit Birmani, Ajay Kumar, and Manoj Sharma, who directly implicated the applicants. It was contended that, based on oral and documentary evidence, including the suicide note and FSL report, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to file the chargesheet. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 4 Ashish Naithani J.

15. It was further submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, after considering the record, rightly found a prima facie case and took cognizance. Relying on settled law, the State urged that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, should not assess the sufficiency or reliability of evidence as if conducting a trial.

16. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 endorsed the State’s submissions, asserting that the FIR was based on actual facts and that the investigation unearthed adequate material to justify prosecution. She alleged continuous harassment and torture of the deceased and Respondent No. 2 by the applicants, driven by greed for property, which allegedly led to the deceased’s suicide.

17. It was further alleged that the applicants taunted the deceased over the couple’s childlessness and conspired to deprive him of his share in family property. Respondent No. 2 claimed that the applicants sold ancestral land through a power of attorney and left for Canada. Upon learning of this, the deceased was allegedly assaulted and threatened by Applicants No. 3 to 5, as also reflected in the suicide note.

18. In response, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the power of attorney was jointly executed by the deceased and Applicant No. 1 with mutual consent. It was further contended that the hotel’s overdraft account was solely operated by the deceased, and Applicant No. 1 had made car loan payments on his behalf, supported by bank documents. It was argued that no criminal intent could be attributed to the applicants, reiterating their prayer for quashing the charge- sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings.

19. Having carefully considered arguments advanced by counsel for the applicants and the respondents, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 5 Ashish Naithani J. and after examining the materials on record, we are of the view that this application under Section 482 CrPC deserves to be allowed.

20. The gravamen of the prosecution case against the applicants is that they allegedly harassed and mentally tortured the deceased Pradeep Maan over property matters, which allegedly led him to commit suicide. The question before us is whether, on the face of the materials on record, the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC are prima facie made out.

21. Before proceeding further, is pertinent reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. Section 306 IPC reads as follows: “Section 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.” Section 107 IPC defines the term "abetment" 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 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 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 6 Ashish Naithani J. thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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."

22. Section 306 IPC requires a careful examination of what constitutes culpable abetment under criminal law. The provision demands more than passive association; it requires affirmative acts that actively instigate, provoke, or intentionally create circumstances where the deceased is left with no reasonable alternative but to end their life.

23. To attract Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, two elements must be established: first, a demonstrable act or series of acts by the accused that either directly incite the deceased to commit suicide or create an oppressive environment leaving no escape; and second, a culpable intention (mens rea) to drive the deceased to such an extreme step.

24. Instigation need not be verbal or explicit it may be inferred from conduct designed to inflict severe mental or emotional distress. However, the law draws a distinction between unpleasant or distressing conduct and conduct that rises to the level of abetment. Mere familial discord, financial disputes, or heated exchanges absent any demonstrable intent to provoke suicide do not suffice. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 7 Ashish Naithani J.

25. The alleged acts of instigation must also bear a direct and proximate link to the suicide. Isolated incidents, especially those remote in time, cannot, without more, ground a charge under Section 306 IPC. A tangible nexus between the accused's conduct and the deceased’s act of suicide must be clearly established.

26. In the present case, even assuming the allegations to be true, they primarily reflect generalized grievances arising out of familial tension and financial disagreement. While such circumstances may cause emotional strain, they do not, in the absence of specific instances of deliberate incitement or wilful oppression, meet the rigorous standard required under Section 306 IPC.

27. To qualify as abetment, it must be shown that the accused not only contributed to the deceased’s distress but did so with the intent to compel the act of suicide. Without such evidence, the allegation of abetment remains legally unsustainable.

28. The applicants have filed documents showing joint ownership and the deceased’s operational control over the businesses. The power of attorney and bank statements support their claim of no attempt to deprive the deceased of his rights. None of the applicants have prior criminal antecedents. As the trial is at a preliminary stage, allowing proceedings to continue without clear prima facie evidence would cause undue harassment. Judicial scrutiny under Section 482 CrPC is limited to preventing abuse of the process and ensuring justice is not derailed by groundless prosecution.

29. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is not made out. The matter appears to be essentially civil and familial. In the absence of any overt act of instigation, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 8 Ashish Naithani J. continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the legal process. ORDER

30. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1823 of 2021 is allowed. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations do not prima facie disclose any offence under Section 306 IPC. Continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

31. Therefore, impugned charge-sheet dated

22.01.2021, the cognizance order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 3451 of 2021 (State vs. Sharanjeet Maan and others), and all proceedings arising there from, are hereby quashed. Dt: 15.05.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 – Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand. 9 Ashish Naithani J.