AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though served, but nobody appeared on behalf of non-applicant no.2.
The applicant seeks quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.725/2025 registered with Police Station, Darwha, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) as well as charge-sheet No.23/2025 filed in Sessions Case No.27/2026.
The charge-sheet indicates that deceased Anil Pande took a loan of ₹5 lakhs from the applicant by mortgaging his house. Since, the deceased did not repay the amount, the applicant was taking follow-up for repayment of the amount. On 03.12.2025, the applicant assaulted the deceased by means of fist blows and threatened him either to repay the amount or vacate the house which was mortgaged by deceased Anil. The deceased felt humiliated and on 05.12.2025 in the morning, he committed suicide. Non-applicant no.2/complainant who is the wife of the deceased, lodged the present FIR with Police Station, Darwha against the present applicant, whereby, the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 115(2) of the BNS came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant of persistent and continuous harassment to the deceased. No suicide note was found in the present case which would pin the responsibility of the deceased's death on the applicant. According to her, the entire charge-sheet does not indicate any other incident except the incident of alleged assault by the applicant to the deceased dated 03.12.2025. The alleged incident took place on 03.12.2025 and after two days, the deceased committed suicide. There is no material to link the death of the deceased with the alleged incident of assault. There is no proximity between these two incidents and therefore, abetment cannot be attributed to the applicant. There may be other reasons for the deceased committing suicide. Even if the contents of the FIR are taken on their face value, they do not constitute the offence of abetment against the applicant. The alleged assault or abuses cannot be termed as abetment to the deceased to commit suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another 1. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girish Shantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2 and Amit Padmakar More Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and another 3.
Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that after the incident dated 03.12.2025, the deceased was disturbed and therefore, he committed suicide. She further submitted that within a span of two days, the deceased took his own life and therefore, there is a live link between the alleged assault and the suicide. She contends that the case deserves trial and sought rejection of the application.
Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be useful to first refer to Sections 108 and 45 of the BNS which form the subject matter of the present criminal proceedings and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 108 of the BNS, which reads thus:
“108.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.
45.Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(a)instigates any person to do that thing; or
(b)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
(c)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 thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 1 has observed that:
“12.Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.”
The Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police 2 has observed that:
“7.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
8.In our considered view, in the case at hand, MO 1 letter and the oral evidence of PW 1 to PW 5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.”
The Supreme Court in the Case of Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana 1 has observed that:
“14.2.…….
34.The word “abetment” has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. …
*
36.The word “instigate” literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct.
37.The words “urge forward” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as “abetment”.
15.Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when:
(i)he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii)he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or
(iii)he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred above, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the person who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 108 of the BNS. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.
Perusal of the charge-sheet would indicate that deceased – Anil Pande was facing financial difficulties as his son was suffering from a serious disease. Therefore, he had taken a loan from the applicant and as a security thereof, he had executed a sale-deed in favour of the applicant to repay the amount. On 03.12.2025, a quarrel took place on account of repayment of amount between the applicant and the deceased. The applicant abused, assaulted and threatened the deceased that either he repay the amount or vacate the house. It also appears from the statement of the employer of the deceased that on 04.12.2025, the deceased was very disturbed and wanted to lodge an FIR against the applicant but he did not lodge the FIR. On 05.12.2025, he committed suicide by hanging himself. Initially, ADR was registered and later on, on the complaint of the wife of the deceased, the present FIR came to be registered.
In the present case, even if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, it would at the most reveal that the applicant was insisting the deceased to repay the amount or vacate the premises. On this account, he also quarreled with the deceased, abused him and also assaulted him. Asking to repay the amount or vacate the house or abusing or assaulting the deceased cannot be termed as an act of abetment. The act of the applicant of abusing or assaulting the deceased in order to demand the amount of repayment or to vacate the house cannot be termed as willful instigation or conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased to commit suicide.
It is to be noted here that it is not the case that any suicide note has been left by the deceased. It appears that the deceased had borrowed money from other persons as well. That apart, the incident of abuse and assault took place on 03.12.2025 and thereafter, the deceased met various persons including his employer and other witnesses. Thus, the deceased had sufficient time to ponder over his decision. There is no close proximity between the alleged abuse and assault by the applicant and the suicide committed by the deceased.
It is also not the case that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide for the simple reason that as per the statement of the employer of the deceased, the deceased had thought about lodging an FIR against the applicant regarding the alleged assault which took place on 03.12.2025. Thus, the facts of the present case do not indicate that the act of the applicant can be termed as abetment, even if the material available in the charge-sheet is accepted as its face value.
So far as the offence punishable under Section 115(2) is concerned, the material on record prima facie discloses the allegations that the applicant threatened the deceased and also assaulted him. However, it is pertinent to note that the said offence is non-cognizable in nature and therefore, the police could not have undertaken an investigation without obtaining a prior order from the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Once the offence under Section 108 of the BNS is excluded, the FIR does not prima facie disclose any other cognizable offence.
It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others 1, which reads thus:
““102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of the above, the present case squarely falls under clause (4) of para 102 of the decision of Bhajanlal (supra).
Considering the facts mentioned above, a case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Hence, the following order is passed:
The application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing Crime No.725/2025 registered with Police Station, Darwha, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as charge-sheet No.23/2025 filed in Sessions Case No.27/2026 are hereby quashed and set aside.