Sanjay Baghel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The present application, under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the applicant - Sanjay Baghel for quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.126/2024 registered at Police Station Uteela, District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, as well as all judicial proceedings arising therefrom.

As per prosecution story, on 06.10.2024 the body of the missing person registered as Missing No.13/24 — Ashok Pathak, son of Lakshminarayan Pathak, resident of Uteela — was recovered from the field of Radha Krishna Gaud, Uteela, hanging from a large neem tree, apparently showing him to have committed suicide. An inquest report (Marg) No.16/24 under Section 194 BNSS was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation, which was carried out by the police.

During the investigation, on 11.10.2024 the deceased’s cousin Chhotu Pathak (son of Premnarayan Pathak) presented a suicide note that he had taken from the deceased Ashok Pathak’s grocery shop. The said suicide note was thereafter forwarded for forensic examination as a questioned document/handwritten document to the State Examiner, [questioned documents section], Nahangirabad, Bhopal. The contents of that suicide note are as follows:

“Anil Parashar and I both had told them to close the account but they did not heed either of us. Pawan Sharma, Ashish Kapoor (the ones who arranged the ‘quotation’) did the same thing with my maternal uncle’s son Anin as well. In the fraud, Ashok Pathak and Pawan Sharma — his associate Ashish Kapoor and Pawan Sharma — put the quotation; because of that I am ending my life by hanging myself, since they have cheated me out of my money. I took a loan of ₹9,85,000 from Central Bank of India, Uteela branch, and they (Pawan) put the quotation in the name of Ayusi (?). I got ₹10,99,400 disbursed. Even after a month they neither provided the machine nor returned my money. I told them I was closing the loan and to return my money. They kept saying yes, yes, but they did not get my loan closed and they ate up my money. Because of them I have an outstanding bank loan of about ₹10 lakh which I cannot repay. Therefore the strictest possible action should be taken against them. Pawan Sharma twice deceitfully got me to sign papers under the pretext of filing forms — they hid what was written on those papers and I was misled into signing them. Along with them, Narendra Sharma Halwai Bahagi and Kamlesh Jatav Murar also took ₹3,00,000 from me and did not return my money. Sanjay Baghel (son of Jagdish, Uteela) also cheated me of ₹30,000. Narendra, Kamlesh, and Sanjay owe amounts dating from 2018. Because of all these people I have fallen into debt and today I am committing suicide.”

On the basis of the suicide note, offences were alleged against Bachan Sharma, Ashish Kapoor, Narendra Sharma, Kamlesh Jatav, and Sanjay (present petitioner), under Sections 108 and 3(5) BNSS; the offences have been registered and the matter is under investigation.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7032/2025 (Narendra Sharma v. State of M.P.), decided on 16.09.2025, arising out of the same crime number and identical set of facts. It is contended that the only allegation against the present applicant is non-repayment of ₹30,000, and there is no allegation of instigation, provocation, harassment, conspiracy, or intentional aid to commit suicide. Relevant extract of the aforesaid order reads thus:

"Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 BNSS) is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The only reference to the applicant in the suicide note is regarding a financial transaction, the deceased alleges that he had advanced ₹3,00,000 to the applicant, which was not returned. Nowhere, in the note does the deceased allege that the applicant engaged in harassment, cruelty, instigation, or any act intending to drive him to commit suicide. Section 108 BNSS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) prescribes criminal liability for abetment of suicide, which requires active instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in causing the suicide; and mens rea, i.e., the accused must intend to aid or instigate the suicidal act. Mere financial disputes or grievances, without any element of provocation or harassment, do not attract the provisions of Section 108 BNSS.

To bring home the charge of abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish a positive act of instigation, provocation or intentional aid by the accused; and the requisite mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, discord, or strained relations, howsoever unpleasant, cannot constitute instigation in law.

The Apex Court in M. Arjunan v. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, has consistently held that unless there is evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement or active aid, the provisions of Section 306 IPC are not attracted.

In the matter of Smt. Radha v. State of M.P., 2008 ILR (M.P.) 3333, this Court has held that mere mention of a creditor in a suicide note due to non-payment does not amount to abetment.

In the present case, the allegations against the applicant are restricted to a financial grievance, and there is no material evidence of instigation, provocation, or harassment causing the deceased to commit suicide. The continuation of the FIR and judicial proceedings against the applicant thus, would amount to abuse of the process of law and harassment without any legal justification.

There is no material to indicate that either applicant had at any point of time instigated, provoked, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The so-called suicide note, though it names the applicant, is bereft of any specific act amounting to incitement. A mere naming of individuals, without narrating any proximate act of instigation or compelling circumstances created by them, cannot, by itself, attract the rigors of Section Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC.

The prosecution material falls short of demonstrating any proximate or live link between the alleged conduct of the applicants and the extreme step taken by the deceased. The subjective state of mind of the deceased, however unfortunate, cannot be substituted for the legal requirement of “instigation” or “intentional aid” attributable to the accused.

The reliance placed by the counsel for the complainant on the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by this Court in Smt. Girja Devi & Ors. v. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.54358/2024) is misplaced. In that case, this Court found that there were specific and direct allegations of harassment against the applicants therein, and the same were corroborated by the statements of the father, mother, and brother of the deceased. It was in that backdrop that the applications were dismissed.

Herein case, the factual scenario is entirely different, as against the present applicant, there is no allegation of instigation or active conduct; the only reference is to a financial transaction where repayment was not made. Hence, the ratio of Girja Devi (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in alleged FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom insofar as they relate to applicant do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS.

Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) is allowed. The impugned FIR No.126/2024 together with all subsequent proceedings stand quashed qua the present applicant."

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with circumspection, to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

A perusal of the suicide note reveals that the allegation against the present applicant is confined to a financial transaction, namely, non-repayment of ₹30,000 allegedly owed to the deceased since 2018. The note does not attribute any overt act, instigation, intentional provocation, harassment, or active participation on the part of the applicant which could be said to have driven the deceased to commit suicide.

Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) contemplates abetment of suicide, which necessarily requires:

(i) a positive act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; and

(ii) the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

Mere financial disputes, strained relations, or allegations of non-payment of money, without any element of incitement or active participation, do not satisfy the ingredients of abetment. A mere naming of a person in a suicide note, absent any specific overt act proximate to the occurrence, is insufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 108 BNS.

The prosecution material does not disclose any proximate or live link 8 MCRC-8942-2026 between the alleged conduct of the present applicant and the extreme step taken by the deceased. The essential ingredients of instigation or intentional aid are conspicuously absent.

This Court, in M.Cr.C. No. 7032/2025 (Narendra Sharma v. State of M.P.), arising out of the same crime number and suicide note, has already held that mere allegation of non-repayment of money, without any specific act of incitement, does not constitute abetment of suicide. The case of the present applicant stands on identical footing.

In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the present application deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 126/2024 registered at Police Station Uteela, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the present applicant – Sanjay Baghel.