Salman Khan & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Since both these petitions arise out of the same FIR bearing Crime No.624/2020 dated 03.11.2020 registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, involve common questions of fact and law, are founded upon the same charge-sheet and challenge the same criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.624/2020 registered at Police Station-Garha, Jabalpur for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Bhagwat Devangan (since deceased) was pursuing Post Graduation in Orthopaedics at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. The present petitioners were senior postgraduate students in the same department. On 01.10.2020, the deceased committed suicide by hanging in his hostel room. The post-mortem report records the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging. Subsequently, on the complaint made by the brothers of the deceased, namely Prahlad Devangan and Devi Devangan, FIR bearing Crime No.624/2020 came to be registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the present petitioners and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

During investigation, statements of several witnesses including Dr. Alokik Gupta, Dr. Ravi Diwakar, Dr. Naveen Kumar Cholak, Dr. Pranay Khandelwal and Dr. Sumit Nahata were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. The investigation further revealed allegations that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment, humiliation and ragging by the petitioners who were his seniors. It was alleged that the deceased was abused repeatedly, physically punished, assaulted even while going for bathing, compelled to perform excessive work beyond his capacity and was humiliated in the operation theatre by making him assume the posture of a cock/rooster as punishment. It was further alleged that despite being aware that the deceased was already under depression and mental distress, the petitioners continued to subject him to harassment and humiliation. The investigating agency also collected material from the mobile phone of the deceased. Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation reflected that the deceased had expressed his inability to bear the conduct and harassment meted out to him by the senior doctors. On completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution story, even if taken at its face value, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. It was contended that in order to constitute 'abetment of suicide' there must exist a clear mens rea, active instigation, intentional aid or direct provocation compelling the deceased to commit suicide. According to the petitioners, no such material is available in the present case.

It is argued that the deceased was suffering from psychological distress, depression and financial instability much prior to the incident. Learned counsel submitted that prescriptions issued by psychiatrists, treatment records and medical documents collected during investigation itself clearly demonstrate that the deceased was under psychiatric treatment and was consuming medicines prescribed for anxiety and depression. It is further submitted that the deceased had earlier attempted suicide by consuming tablets in July/August, 2020 and was treated by Dr. O.P. Raichandani. The petitioners contended that these circumstances clearly establish that the deceased was hypersensitive, emotionally unstable and suffering from financial as well as personal problems independent of any alleged conduct of the petitioners.

It was further argued that the Anti-Ragging Committee of the Medical College had conducted inquiry on earlier occasions and had not found any case of ragging against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased himself had not made any complaint before the Anti-Ragging Committee and therefore the allegations of ragging were subsequently exaggerated after his death. It was argued that the statements of batch-mates recorded during investigation do not attribute any direct or proximate act of instigation against the petitioners and the allegations made by the brothers of the deceased are omnibus and general in nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there was no incident immediately proximate to the commission of suicide which could constitute instigation or abetment. It was argued that the deceased had remained away from the institution for considerable periods and had returned shortly before the incident. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the chain of causation necessary to attract Section 306 of IPC is completely absent. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017; M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315; Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725; Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605; M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626; Balaji Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 602; Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144; State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, (1988) 1 SCC 692; State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 122.

9 Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submitted that mere harassment, disciplinary conduct, use of abusive language or ordinary workplace friction cannot amount to abetment of suicide unless there exists clear intention to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended that the prosecution material does not disclose any direct or positive act on the part of the petitioners which can legally be construed as instigation. It is further argued that continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of basic ingredients of the offence would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the petitions and submitted that the material collected during investigation clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners, and therefore, no interference under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 is warranted at this stage.

It is further submitted that the present case is not based upon vague or bald allegations but upon detailed statements of witnesses recorded during investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., electronic material recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased collected during investigation. Learned counsel submitted that the witnesses namely Dr. Alokik Gupta, Dr. Ravi Diwakar, Dr. Sumit Nahata, Dr. Naveen Kumar Cholak and Dr. Pranay Khandelwal have specifically supported the prosecution case and have stated that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment by the senior doctors including the present petitioners and that he was unable to bear such humiliation and torture, inspite of that he was in depression and was under treatment, regarding which he needed support in place of ragging.

It is argued that the deceased was repeatedly abused, physically punished and humiliated in the operation theatre. The petitioners used to assault him even when he went for bathing and deliberately burdened him with work which he was incapable of completing. The deceased was allegedly made cock/rooster in the operation theatre as a form of punishment and was subjected to systematic ragging and humiliation by the petitioners. It is further argued that the petitioners were fully aware that the deceased was under depression and emotional distress, yet they continued to harass and humiliate him.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that merely because the deceased was suffering from depression or had financial difficulties would not absolve the petitioners from criminal liability if their conduct materially contributed to the suicide. It was argued that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners that the deceased committed suicide solely due to depression or financial problems is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined conclusively in proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973.

It was also submitted that at the stage of quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether prima facie material exists disclosing commission of offence and not whether the prosecution case will ultimately result in conviction. According to the respondents, the evidence collected during investigation clearly establishes a prima facie case against the petitioners, and therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal. It is further argued that the criminal trial has remained pending for a considerable period and interference at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the material collected during investigation, taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, discloses a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the present petitioners and whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be exercised for quashing the criminal proceedings.

For formulating the offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be some abetment on the part of the accused persons. For the purpose of convenience, the provision of Section 306 of IPC is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

Further, abetment is defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which reads as under:-

A conjoint reading of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC makes it clear that for constituting an offence of abetment of suicide, there must exist prima facie material showing instigation, intentional aid or active participation on the part of the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The expression “abetment” under Section 107 of IPC is of wide amplitude and includes not only direct provocation but also a continued course of conduct which creates such circumstances that the deceased is left with no option except to take the extreme step.

Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to notice that the inherent powers of the High Court are undoubtedly wide, however, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional cases where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law or where the allegations do not disclose commission of any offence whatsoever. The Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to conduct a mini trial or appreciate the evidence meticulously as would be done during trial.

In Bhajanlal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed. Similarly, in L. Muniswamy (supra), Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (supra) a n d Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court emphasised that inherent powers are to be exercised with great caution and only where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable. At the same time, it is equally well settled that where the material collected during investigation discloses commission of a cognizable offence and requires adjudication upon appreciation of evidence, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold.

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners including M. Arjunan, Chitresh Kumar Chopra, M. Mohan, Geo Varghese, Nipun Aneja, Abhinav Mohan Delkar and Balaji Jaiswal undoubtedly reiterate the settled proposition that to constitute abetment of suicide there must exist instigation, intentional aid or active participation coupled with mens rea. There can be no dispute with the proposition that mere harassment or ordinary discord, without any direct or proximate conduct compelling suicide, may not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, as discussed above.However, the applicability of the aforesaid principles necessarily depends upon the factual foundation available in each case.

A careful perusal of the charge-sheet and statements of witnesses indicates that the prosecution has collected substantial material alleging continuous harassment, humiliation and ragging of the deceased by the petitioners who were his seniors in the medical institution. The allegations are not confined merely to ordinary workplace discipline or isolated verbal exchanges. The material collected during investigation specifically reflects allegations of repeated abuse, physical punishment and humiliation in the operation theatre, forcing the deceased to assume humiliating postures, assaulting him, compelling him to perform excessive work and continuously targeting him despite knowledge of his fragile mental condition.

The statements of witnesses namely Dr. Alokik Gupta, Dr. Ravi Diwakar, Dr. Sumit Nahata, Dr. Naveen Kumar Cholak and Dr. Pranay Khandelwal, prima facie, support the prosecution version that the deceased was subjected to sustained harassment by senior doctors and that he was unable to bear such conduct. The investigation also reveals that relevant electronic material was recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value or admissibility of such material, however, its existence certainly cannot be ignored while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973.

The submission of the petitioners that the deceased was suffering from depression, financial instability and had prior suicidal tendencies may constitute a possible defence available during trial. However, such circumstances by themselves cannot conclusively exonerate the petitioners at the threshold when there exists prosecution material alleging that despite knowledge of the mental condition of the deceased, the petitioners continued to harass and humiliate him. Whether the suicide was solely attributable to depression and financial problems or whether the conduct of the petitioners materially contributed to driving the deceased towards suicide are questions which necessarily require appreciation of evidence during trial.

This Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that there exists absolutely no proximate material connecting them with the offence. The statements collected during investigation prima facie disclose allegations of continuous and systematic harassment. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are inherently absurd, impossible or so improbable that no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out.

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not advance their case to the extent sought to be canvassed. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered where the allegations were vague, omnibus, lacking proximate nexus or where there was complete absence of material showing instigation or intentional aid. In the present case, however, the prosecution has placed on record statements which prima facie indicate continuous harassment and humiliation allegedly inflicted upon the deceased by the petitioners. Therefore, the factual matrix of the present case stands on a different footing.

The contention regarding findings of the Anti-Ragging Committee also does not persuade this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The scope of departmental or institutional inquiry is altogether different from the scope of criminal investigation. Merely because the Anti-Ragging Committee did not find sufficient material for institutional action would not ipso facto nullify the criminal investigation where independent evidence has been collected by the investigating agency.

At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, the Court is required to examine whether prima facie material exists and not whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed in securing conviction. The defence raised by the petitioners and the explanations sought to be offered by them are matters to be established before the learned trial Court by adducing evidence. Such disputed questions of fact cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023).

Thus, where the allegations disclose continuous harassment, humiliation and mental or physical cruelty having a direct nexus with the suicide, the ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC cannot be said to be absent at the threshold stage. In the present case, the allegations, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose a continued course of conduct attributable to the petitioners sufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, requiring adjudication during trial.

The criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court finds no ground to hold that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. On the contrary, the material collected during investigation requires full-fledged adjudication upon appreciation of evidence during trial.

It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the matter on merits.

Accordingly, both the petitions under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed.