Mukesh Kumar Jha vs State Of U.P. And Another

Hon'Ble Madan Pal Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 as per the office report dated 17th September, 2026, no one has appeared on his/her behalf even in the revised reading of the list.

The instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2025 (State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jha), arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 3rd July,2025 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court has rejected the discharge application of the applicant filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

The brief facts are that a first information report has been lodged by the informant/opposite party no.2 Vikash, brother of the deceased Jyoti against four named accused persons including the applicant on 4th April, 2024. In the written complaint/first information report, it has been alleged that his sister, Jyoti Jha, whose marriage had been fixed with Mukesh Kumar Jha (applicant) for April 21, 2024, was subjected to continuous harassment, cruelty, and blackmail. According to the informant, substantial cash amounts totaling over sixteen lakh rupees were paid to the groom's family on different occasions as per their demands, yet the accused persons subsequently raised an additional demand for a four-wheeler vehicle. When the informant's family expressed their inability to fulfill this extra demand, the proposed marriage was threatened with cancellation, and the groom allegedly exploited the situation by secretly capturing intimate photographs and videos of the victim, subsequently using them to harass and mentally break her down. The grievance further details that driven by severe harassment, humiliation, and the creation of obscene media intended to coerce her, the victim Jyoti Jha (deceased) took the extreme step of ending her life by hanging from a ceiling fan at her residence on March 30, 2024, at around 1:30 PM. The family discovered the incident after breaking open the room, following which a suicide note left behind by the deceased was also found, pointing towards the culpability of the accused. Based on these allegations revealing the commission of cognizable offences, a formal criminal case has been registered under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code at police station Khoda, district Ghaziabad.

After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation proceeded and after completion of the same, charge-sheet under Section 306 I.P.C. has been submitted by the Investigating Officer only against the applicant exonerating the other named accused, who are family members of the applicant. On submission of the same, cognizance has been taken by the court concerned and also process of summon has been issued against him. Subsequently, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, which has been registered as Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2025 (State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jha), arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad, which is presently pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ghaziabad. Whereafter the applicant has filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge, which has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 3rd July, 2025. Hence the present criminal application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent, as the present first information report implicating the appellant along with other accused are false and fabricated. The present first information report lodged by opposite party no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case along with other accused. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by opposite party no.2.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that from version as unfolded in the fist information report and the statements of the witnesses including the parents of the deceased and also from the suicide note of deceased and WhatsApp chats exchanged between the deceased and applicant, which were made part of the prosecution material during investigation and case diary, nothing incriminating was found against the accused-applicant to establish prima-facie commission of any offence by him, when as matter of fact the Investigating Officer on 18th June, 2024, quite illegally and arbitrarily, concluded the investigation of the case by submitting charge-sheet No. 1 of 2024 against the accused-applicant for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is relevant to submit that apart from all the documents which were made part of the case diary, the Investigating Officer of the case had also appended the print out of WhatsApp chats of duration between 29.1.2024 up till 29.3.2024 which were allegedly exchanged between the accused-applicant and and deceased and the said chats had been given by the informant to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer of the case had also collected the suicide note left by the deceased. Both these documents i.e. the print out of the WhatsApp chats and the suicide note have been included and made part of the case diary, which were submitted by the informant against the accused-applicant. The Investigating Officer of the case on 27.4.2024 had gone through the complete WhatsApp chat as handed over to him by the informant taken out from the WhatsApp account of deceased and had also analyzed every messages/conversation held between the deceased and the accused-applicant beginning from 29.1.2024 up till 29.3.2024. His analysis is part of the prosecution material appended with the chargesheet supra filed in the instant case.

It is further submitted that from bare perusal of the prosecution evidence both documentary and oral as appended with the chargesheet supra, it was more than apparent that not only that there was no incriminating evidence suggesting even prima-facie commission of any of the offences for which it was filed against the accused-applicant on the contrary, the evidence was clearly pointing out the innocence of the accused-applicant. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation clearly reveals that there was no reference to any act or incident proximate to commission of suicide by the deceased whereby the accused-applicant could have been said to be guilty of committing any willful act or omission or intentionally aiding or instigating the deceased for committing the act of suicide and therefore, the offence of Section 306 IPC was not made out against him. Evidently, the Investigating Officer of the case did not find any evidence, which could have substantiated the wild allegations made by the informant in the FIR of the instant case regarding physical relationship of the deceased with the accused-applicant or even regarding demand of dowry, as alleged between the engagement and the date of suicide of the deceased and it is for these reason that he had filed charge-sheet for no other offence than as defined under Section 306 IPC. In fact, the WhatsApp chats including the statements given by the parents of the deceased had clearly revealed that the accused-applicant had met her only two times that too in presence of her parents and family members. The conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer of the case regarding alleged commission of offence under Section 306 IPC qua the accused-applicant is primarily drawn on complete misinterpretation or to say piecemeal reading of certain messages of complete WhatsApp chats exchanged between the deceased and the accused-applicant. By merely reading few messages out of the entire WhatsApp chats exchanged between 29.1.2024 till 29.3.2024 i.e. to say a day before suicide on 30.3.2024, the Investigating Officer of the case had jumped to out of context conclusion that those messages sent by the accused-applicant fell within the category of abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. A bare reading of complete WhatsApp chat as collected by the Investigating Officer of the case goes to reveal that the accused-applicant had always reassured the deceased that he will marry her under every circumstance on the scheduled date i.e. 21.4.2024-for which he and his family, had made all preparation including train ticket reservation for travelling to their village in the State of Bihar where the marriage ceremony was to be held.

It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the WhatsApp chats clearly reveals that she was obsessed with relationship with the accused-applicant who used to himself console her on number of previous occasions when she had shown signs of mental imbalances. In fact, a complete reading of those chats goes to reveal that she harbored her own feelings while chatting with the accused-applicant who used to be pestered by extensive messages sent by her even when he was engaged in his coaching classes. The extremities of her mental balances are clearly revealed from bare perusal of the entire WhatsApp chats. Such conversations did not reveal that the accused-applicant had ever harassed her.

It is further submitted that when the trial proceeding of the instant case reached at the stage of S. 227/228 CrPC, the accused-applicant filed his discharge application on 17.4.2025 before the Trial Court in terms of Section 227 CrPC. Neither the informant nor the State Counsel had filed their objection before the trial court in response to written discharge application of the accused-applicant. However, the trial court quite erroneously vide its order dated 3.7.2025 has rejected the discharge application of the accused-applicant without applying its judicial mind to the facts & circumstances of the case and also over the question of law. Since the order dated 3.7.2025 passed by the trial court, is perverse and illegal and also since no case is made out against the applicant under Section306 I.P.C. therefore, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him, which is clear abuse of process of court, are liable to be quahsed by this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 528 Cr.P.C. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:

(i). Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 SC OnLine SC 107;

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that a review of the WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the deceased, spanning from the 21st to the 29th, clearly reveals that the applicant used to level allegations against the deceased's character. This caused the deceased significant distress; she became so troubled by his constant suspicions and accusations that she ultimately decided to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The opposition further argues that, although the deceased did not explicitly state in their suicide note that they were distressed due to the applicant's allegations regarding their character, the entire set of WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased make it abundantly clear that the deceased died by suicide precisely because of the applicant. In this context, the opposing side cited the statement of Kavita, a neighbor and friend of the deceased, who has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that one day, I went to Jyoti's house for some work and noticed that she seemed troubled. When I asked her about what was bothering her, she didn't tell her anything. Later, another day, she found Jyoti sitting outside her house and asked her again about her troubles; this time, she told her that Mukesh was harassing her and did not want to marry her. Uncle Jagannath keeps saying all sorts of unpleasant things to Mukesh about her character. It is because of what he says that Mukesh also makes disparaging remarks about her character to her. She is deeply troubled by these things said by the applicant through her Uncle Jagannath, it makes her wants to die.

On the above premise, learned A.G.A. urges that from the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record of the present application as well as the entire case diary, which has been produced by the learned A.G.A. before this Court today.

Before coming on the merits of the case, it is necessary for this Court to refer to Section 306 I.P.C., which reads as follows:

The ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are defined in Section 107 I.P.C. (45 B.N.S.S.), on the basis of which the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is levelled against an accused, therefore, Section 306 with Section 107 which defines 'Abetment' must be read together. For ready reference Section 107 I.P.C. is quoted here-under:

The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been explained in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, as follows:

In Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2026) 6 SCC 251, the Apex Court has further interpreted the offence as below:

Reliance is also to be placed upon another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. reported in 2017 (7) SCC 780 wherein it has been held as under:

In Balaji Jaiswal Vs. State of Chattishgarh & Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 602 has opined in paragraph no.11 that from the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that for sustaining a charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, it has to be shown that the accused persons had contributed to the suicide by the deceased through some direct or indirect act. Section 107 of the Penal Code has thereafter been referred to hold that there ought to be some instigation or incitement that would reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide, thus, leading the victim to such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. There ought to be some material to indicate a positive act of instigation, which is a crucial component of abetment. Instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person has been held to be the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. The act of instigation also has to be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus or a chain to indicate that the act of suicide was the direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person. Incidentally, the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent has been considered and relied upon in Prakash & Others (supra).

Now it is necessary for this Court to notice the relevant facts of this Case. It is admitted by the prosecution as per the version of the first information report and the statements of the witnesses that the marriage of the deceased Jyoti Jha, had been fixed with Mukesh Kumar Jha (applicant) for 21st April, 2024. After fixing of the said marriage, the deceased sent a message to the applicant's WhatsApp number for the first time on January 29, 2024, at 21:51 hours. The applicant responded, and thereafter, the two remained in regular contact via WhatsApp and phone calls, a pattern of communication that continued until March 29, 2024, at 23:58, the night before the deceased's death i.e. 30th March, 2024, as is evident from the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased and the same are part of the case diary, which have been brought on record from page nos. 144 to 230 of the paper book.

Upon perusal of the entire prosecution case, it becomes evident that, following the investigation, the Investigating Officer concluded, based solely on the WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the deceased, that the deceased, feeling distressed and troubled by the remarks made by the applicant regarding her character, was driven to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It is on the basis of this evidence that the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant. Because in the suicide note written by the deceased before her death, she has nothing stated against the applicant.

From perusal of the entire WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased from 29th January, 2024 at 21:51 hrs. to 29th March, 2024 at 23:58 hrs., it is apparent that there is nothing to prove that the applicant had ever provoked or instigated the deceased to take extreme steps of committing suicide. It is also cropped up from the aforesaid chats that the applicant has not conspired in committing suicide by the deceased along with other accused. Reading these chats also reveals that the deceased was a highly sensitive young woman who would get upset with the applicant over trivial matters. She would constantly message or call him, even late at night, and would become displeased if he was unable to talk due to work commitments or exhaustion. Although their marriage had only just been arranged, she would behave toward the applicant as if she were already his wife. A close examination of the chats reveals that it was the deceased who repeatedly pestered the applicant to talk, and even used emotional blackmail to compel the applicant to engage in conversation.

Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

The Apex Court in Amudha Vs. State reported in 2024 (19) SCC 690 has held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

Again, in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541, the Apex Court observed that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society. Commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

In Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 6 SCC 251, the Apex Court after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal position in the following manner:

In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 (5) SCC 371 and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48 hours between using of abusive language by the accused and the commission of suicide would not amount to a proximate act.

In Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801 the Apex has observed that as has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

The Apex Court in the case of Ayyub & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2025) 3 SCC 334 in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 has observed as under:

In the case of Vinod Shivakumar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1583 the Apex Court has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 6 SCC (Cril.) 124, wherein Sections 306 and 107 I.P.C. have been interpreted and it has been observed as under:

Having surveyed the relevant legal provisions and the case laws on the subject, let us now deal with the material available on record specifically the WhatsApp-Chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased and the statement of the prosecution witness Kavita.

In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Kavita, who is stated to be friend and neighbour of the deceased has not disclosed the date and time when she visited the house of the deceased and met her and she has not disclosed as to on which date the deceased has told her that the applicant was harassing her and did not want to marry her. Since uncle Jagannath keeps saying all sorts of unpleasant things to Mukesh about her character, therefore, the applicant makes disparaging remarks about her character to her. Because of that, she is deeply troubled by these things said by him, it makes her wants to die. In the said conversation exchanged between the deceased and the witness Kavita, it is not clear as to from which period, applicant was harassing the deceased and when he refused to marry the deceased.

From the aforesaid statement, it is not clear as to on which date, the deceased was deeply troubled by the disparaging remarks about her character which the applicant had expressed or told to her.

Perusal of the entire WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased indicates that in their conversation, which took place between 23:11 from March 23, 2024, to 08:43 on March 24, 2024 which are at page nos. 225 to 226 of the paper book, the deceased had addressed the applicant, noting that he had doubts regarding her character. Subsequently, in her chats with the applicant, she did not state that the applicant had refused marriage, was harassing her, or had made allegations regarding her character. When as matter of fact the deceased continued to chat with the applicant until 23:58 on March 29, 2024, the day before her death. During these interactions, their communication remained cordial, and there was no indication that she was distressed or troubled by any aspect of the applicant's behavior. Viewed in this light, the claim that she committed suicide about six days after the 24th March, 2024, allegedly due to accusations made by the applicant against her character, seems completely untrue. Because a person may take the drastic step of ending their own life in a moment of intense impulse, an impulse often triggered by someone else's provocation or instigation, while simultaneously feeling that they have no other option but to commit suicide.

For ready reference, the relevant whatsapp chats exchanged between the applicant and the deceased on 23rd March, 2024 to 24th March, 2024, which are at page nos. 225 and 226 of the paper book, are quoted herein below:

In the present case, it is evident from the aforementioned facts that the allegation against the applicant, that he harassed the deceased regarding her character, pertained to a period ending six days prior to her death. An examination of the chats, specifically those from the 28th and 29th March, 2024 reveals no indication that the applicant made any remarks concerning the deceased's character. Moreover, the marriage between the deceased and the applicant had only been fixed, it had not yet taken place. Consequently, she had ample opportunity or the option, to end the relationship if the applicant decided against marrying her due to concerns about her character; she could have severed ties with him, married someone else, and moved forward with her life as she wished. Since the marriage of the deceased has only been fixed with the applicant and the same has not been solemnized, therefore, presumption contained in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is also not applicable in the present case.

It is also important for this Court to refer the whatsaap chats which have been exchanged between the applicant and the decased on 28th March and 29th March, 2024 before her death i.e. 30th March, 2024, which read as follows:

From the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the accused-applicant assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Jyoti with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It could certainly not be said that the applicant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the applicant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion this Court draws taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the applicant in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of process.

It is now necessary forthis Court to refer to the hand written suicide note of deceased Jyoti Jha, which was written in Hindi. For ready reference, the same is extracted in English hereunder:

Perusal of the suicide note written by the deceased before her death reveals that nothing wrong has stated by her against the applicant.

In Mahendra Awase (Supra) has opined in paragraph no. 24 as under:

After deeper scrutiny of the whatsapp chats exchanged between the applicant and deceased and also the statement of witness Kavita relied upon by the learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prima faice establish that the accused applicant had any intention to instigate, aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The whatsapp chats and the statement of Kavita undoubtedly reflects the anguish of the deceased, however, they do not disclose any act on the part of the applicant from which the requisite mens rea can reasonably be inferred. There is also no material to suggest that the accused applicant, by his words or conduct, intended to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no reasonable alternative except in an unfortunate incident. Furthermore, the criminal liability under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot rest upon the tragedy of the outcome alone. It must be founded upon the statutory ingredients of Section 306, which are absent in the present case.

This Court is therefore, satisfied that even if the entire prosecution material is accepted at its face value, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would in the facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to an abuse of process of the law.

In view of the above discussions and deliberations of the facts and laws laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, this Court holds that since ingredients contained in Section 107 I.P.C. to make out a case under Section 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in the facts of the present case, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant are liable to be quashed.

Consequently, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2025 (State Vs. Mukesh Kumar Jha), arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ghaziabad are quashed.

The present criminal application is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.