State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Srivastava Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.07.2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated

06.08.2024, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 8807/2024 (State vs. Dushyant Pratap Singh & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0311/2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, presently pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the deceased, Ravi Kumar Mishra, was employed as Computer Operator on contractual basis in the Department of Rural Planning Development at Urmaura, Robertsganj. On 21.03.2023, the deceased left his residence for his office at about 9:30 A.M., but did not return home thereafter, and his mobile phone was found switched off. Upon his disappearance, a missing report was lodged by his elder brother at Police Station Robertsganj. During course of search, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased in a hanging position from a tree in the night of

22.03.2023. Thereafter, inquest (panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 22.03.2023, followed by post-mortem on 23.03.2023. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to 2 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 strangulation, with an "O" shaped ligature mark present on the neck, which was noted as an ante-mortem injury. Thereafter, with a delay of more than two months, Opposite Party No. 2, being wife of the deceased, lodged an FIR on dated 30.05.2023 against the present applicant and another co- accused, alleging conspiracy and murder of the deceased. In the course of investigation, the Investigating officer did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and, submitted a charge sheet only under Section 306 IPC, whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 06.08.2024 which has been challenged through the present application. the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the entire criminal impugned chargsheet and proceedings of cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since she has not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. It has also been apprised by learned counsel for applicant the present FIR was lodged after delay of two months, meaning thereby, afterthought, the present criminal proceedings has been initiated by way of implicating the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, 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 applicant that there is hardly any suicide note or any dying declaration of the deceased alleging anything against applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that the deceased was employed with applicant (Chief Engineer) the Programme Implementation Unit as a Computer Operator on contractual basis and there was neither a proper nor proximate relation which shows that applicant was harassed and threatened by the applicant. 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 06.08.2024 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 3 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 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 counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

7. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the considerations as far as offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which reads as under: "306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever 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"

8. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

9. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence of abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.

10. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, Hon'ble the Apex Court has analysed different meanings of "Instigation". The relevant para of the said Judgment is reproduced herein: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not 4 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

11. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by Hon'be Supreme Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under: "43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367)] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there, has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

12. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs: "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also 5 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

14. In light of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provision what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or added to the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect inducement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or who are doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed that to constitute 'Instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment' as under and laid down the constituents as follows: "(i) The accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (II) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above."

16. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra & 6 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 Ors.[2025 INSC 990], Hon'ble the Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC 4994 observed as under:- "This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."

18. In the present case, all the material available on record in shape of the FIR which was lodged after two months of the alleged incident, chargesheet, post-mortem report, and statements recorded during investigation, are not quite enough to suggest this Court that any act of the applicant at any point of time, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Moreso, there is hardly any material available on record which shows that applicant was harassed and threatened by the applicant and without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the applicant which compelled the deceased to commit suicide, putting the applicant into trial, will be abuse of process of law.

19. In view of the above discussions and in light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying it to undisputed facts of the present case, charge sheet dated 10.07.2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated

06.08.2024, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 8807/2024 (State vs. Dushyant Pratap Singh & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0311/2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, 7 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 District Sonbhadra, presently pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed qua applicant herein.

20. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed. December 16, 2025 Rakesh (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Srivastava Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.07.2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated

06.08.2024, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 8807/2024 (State vs. Dushyant Pratap Singh & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0311/2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, presently pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the deceased, Ravi Kumar Mishra, was employed as Computer Operator on contractual basis in the Department of Rural Planning Development at Urmaura, Robertsganj. On 21.03.2023, the deceased left his residence for his office at about 9:30 A.M., but did not return home thereafter, and his mobile phone was found switched off. Upon his disappearance, a missing report was lodged by his elder brother at Police Station Robertsganj. During course of search, the police recovered the dead body of the deceased in a hanging position from a tree in the night of

22.03.2023. Thereafter, inquest (panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 22.03.2023, followed by post-mortem on 23.03.2023. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to 2 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 strangulation, with an "O" shaped ligature mark present on the neck, which was noted as an ante-mortem injury. Thereafter, with a delay of more than two months, Opposite Party No. 2, being wife of the deceased, lodged an FIR on dated 30.05.2023 against the present applicant and another co- accused, alleging conspiracy and murder of the deceased. In the course of investigation, the Investigating officer did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and, submitted a charge sheet only under Section 306 IPC, whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 06.08.2024 which has been challenged through the present application. the said case alongwith

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the entire criminal impugned chargsheet and proceedings of cognizance/summoning order on the grounds that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since she has not committed any offence as alleged in shape of provoking the deceased to commit suicide. It has also been apprised by learned counsel for applicant the present FIR was lodged after delay of two months, meaning thereby, afterthought, the present criminal proceedings has been initiated by way of implicating the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the foundational ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC comprise suicidal death and abetment thereof and to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, 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 applicant that there is hardly any suicide note or any dying declaration of the deceased alleging anything against applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that the deceased was employed with applicant (Chief Engineer) the Programme Implementation Unit as a Computer Operator on contractual basis and there was neither a proper nor proximate relation which shows that applicant was harassed and threatened by the applicant. 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 06.08.2024 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 3 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 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 counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

7. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the considerations as far as offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which reads as under: "306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever 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"

8. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

9. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence of abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.

10. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, Hon'ble the Apex Court has analysed different meanings of "Instigation". The relevant para of the said Judgment is reproduced herein: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not 4 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

11. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by Hon'be Supreme Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under: "43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367)] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there, has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

12. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs: "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also 5 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

14. In light of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provision what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or added to the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect inducement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or who are doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed that to constitute 'Instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court summed up the constituents of 'abetment' as under and laid down the constituents as follows: "(i) The accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (II) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above."

16. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra & 6 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 Ors.[2025 INSC 990], Hon'ble the Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC 4994 observed as under:- "This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."

18. In the present case, all the material available on record in shape of the FIR which was lodged after two months of the alleged incident, chargesheet, post-mortem report, and statements recorded during investigation, are not quite enough to suggest this Court that any act of the applicant at any point of time, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Moreso, there is hardly any material available on record which shows that applicant was harassed and threatened by the applicant and without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the applicant which compelled the deceased to commit suicide, putting the applicant into trial, will be abuse of process of law.

19. In view of the above discussions and in light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying it to undisputed facts of the present case, charge sheet dated 10.07.2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated

06.08.2024, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 8807/2024 (State vs. Dushyant Pratap Singh & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0311/2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, 7 NA528 No. 20641 of 2025 District Sonbhadra, presently pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed qua applicant herein.

20. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed. December 16, 2025 Rakesh (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)