Gulshan Kumar vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: July 10, 2026
% Pronounced on: July 22, 2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024, CRL.M.A. 33349/2024
GULSHAN KUMAR ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Malik, Mr. Aditya Jain,
Mr. Shivang and Ms. Tanisha Malik,
Advs.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi, Ms. Divya Bakshi,
Advocates
Mr. Sagar Kakkar, Adv. for
Complainant with Complainant in
person (through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 of the Code of
1
Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order
2
dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-02, North District, Rohini
3
Courts, Delhi framing charges against him under Sections 306/34 of the
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in proceedings arising out of FIR No.463/2011
dated 15.11.2011 registered at PS: K.N. Katju Marg.
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ CrPC ’
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ impugned order ’
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Trial Court ’
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
2. Succinctly put , an FIR was registered pursuant to application dated
01.09.2011 under Section 156(3) CrPC made by the complainant to the
5
effect that his deceased father , whose dead body was discovered floating
inside Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant on 12.07.2011 at about 01:55 PM,
had committed suicide due to harassment at the hands of various known
and unknown persons for recovery of certain monies they had lent to the
deceased, albeit the petitioner was not named therein.
6
3. During the course of investigation, one Suicide Note was also
received by the reader at PS: K.N. Katju Marg, as per which, the petitioner
and one Kashmiri Lal (since deceased) financed vehicle bearing
No.DL1M0175 for the deceased, and in the process of demanding back the
said amount, took possession of the said vehicle and returned the same only
after forcing him to transfer a certain portion of land in favour of one
Acche Lal for Rs.5 lacs . Further, when the deceased demanded the said
amount from them after a lapse of two months , they did not give him any
money and rather demanded repayment of the initial loan as also threatened
to sell his vehicle to recover their money . There were further certain
allegations therein against one Arun Kumar who had also allegedly lent
money to the deceased and was demanding back the same.
4. After filing of the Chargesheet on 26.04.2016, Supplementary
Chargesheet was filed two years later on 02.12.2018, and upon issuance of
summons, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order framing
charges against the petitioner and Kashmiri Lal since there were allegations
against them of having threatened the deceased in the Suicide Note,
5
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ deceased ’
6
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ Suicide Note ’
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
whereon the signatures of the deceased had been verified as per the
7
Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 04.05.2016 . However, by the
very same impugned order, the other accused were discharged as well.
5. In these facts, challenging the impugned order before this Court,
learned counsel for petitioner primarily submitted that the impugned order
has been passed erroneously as there is nothing on record to implicate the
petitioner, moreover, since he was neither named in the initial complaint
filed by the complainant and the resultant FIR nor in the original
Chargesheet but was mentioned for the very first time in the Supplementary
Chargesheet, that too in Column 12 only as a ‘ suspect ’. In fact, Arun
Kumar, who was arrayed as the only ‘ accused ’ in the Supplementary
Chargesheet and against whom the wife of the deceased had allegedly filed
a complaint about one week prior to the incident for molestation and
harassment, has been discharged along with his employees by the learned
Trial Court.
6. Qua the materials on record, learned counsel submitted that the same
8
are wholly unreliable since the Post-Mortem Report dated 13.07.2011 is
inconclusive as to the cause of death and records other injuries on the body
of the deceased, as well as the Suicide Note was recovered under
mysterious circumstances much later than the discovery of the dead body
of the deceased, and though the signatures thereon were verified, as per the
FSL Report, the contents thereof could not be verified.
7. Even otherwise, learned counsel submitted that the contents of the
Suicide Note do not disclose any element of offences under Sections
7
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ FSL Report ’
8
Hereinafter referred to as ‘ PM Report ’
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
306/34 IPC qua the petitioner since there is nothing barring vague
allegations therein. Qua the allegedly forced transfer of land in which the
petitioner is said to be involved, the complainant himself was also a
witness, as also no complaint, FIR or any other steps were taken by the
deceased or the complainant therefor. As such, relying upon the decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya
9 10
Pradesh , Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , S.S.
11
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
12
Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh as also of this Court in Ajit Singh v.
13
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Manchanda vs. Lt.
14
Governor of Delhi , the learned counsel submitted that there was nothing
attributable to the petitioner which could show any act or intention to abet
the deceased to commit suicide in terms of Section 306/34 IPC.
8. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, both learned APP and learned counsel for
complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not
suffer from any errors. They submitted that the signatures on the Suicide
Note are matching with those of the deceased as per the FSL Report and it
is too early for the petitioner to contest the authenticity of the contents.
They further submitted that since there are allegations against the petitioner
and Kashmiri Lal of threatening the deceased and using force to get him
9
(2025) 4 SCC 801
10
(2010) 1 SCC 750
11
(2010) 12 SCC 190
12
(2002) 5 SCC 371
13
I (2010) DLT (Crl.) 237
14
2007 (95) DRJ 449
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
transferred his land, prima facie , offences under Section 306/34 IPC are
made out against them, for which trial is required.
10. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and the learned
APP, as also carefully perused the pleadings and documents on record as
well as the judgements cited at Bar.
11. At the outset this Court notes that under the existing circumstances,
15
it is imperative to give due weightage to the provisions of Section 107
IPC while dealing with an offence of abetment of suicide under Section
16
306 IPC. While dealing with the same, it is now settled by a long line of
judicial precedents that an accused is required to have played an active role
in commission of suicide of the deceased, either by instigation compelling
the said deceased to end the life or by conspiring with others to ensure that
the deceased commits suicide or by acting in a way which directly results
17
in the suicide . For this, mere allegations without any specific, direct or
18
indirect, act(s) coupled with clear mens rea may itself not be enough .
Further, instigation should be such which involves a positive mental
process involving intentional provoking, inciting, goading, urging,
19
forwarding or encouraging commission of suicide or committing acts or
15
‘ 107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly-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
Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
(xxx xxx xxx)’
16
‘ 306. 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’
17
Prabhu vs. State: Order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)
No.39981/2022
18
Mahendra Awase (supra)
19
Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra)
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
omissions proximal to the time of occurrence which would have left the
20
deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to life .
12. Therefore, while framing of charges it is necessary for a Court to
take into consideration each of the above. Further, at the same time as per
settled position of law a Court is not required to undertake a mini-trial by
weighing and balancing the evidence. Also, framing of a charge is
independent of the final outcome, which may lead to conviction of an
accused. However, sifting of evidence, if required, may be adverted to by
21 22
the Court ’ . It is also to be kept in mind that where the ingredients of an
offence are not made out even from the case of the prosecution as reflected
in the materials on record, the Court is not obligated to frame the
23 24
charge ’ .
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while specifically dealing with respect
to charges under Section 306 IPC, repeatedly held that it is not just or fair
to put any individual through the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the
25
absence of any credible material against him . In fact, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has recently reiterated that a Court ought not to frame
charges under Section 306 IPC casually or only to play safe without testing
26
the same against the threshold as contemplated therein .
14. Applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds note that the petitioner was neither named by the complainant in his
initial complaint nor were there any prior complaint(s) filed against him by
20
Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B.: (2010) 1 SCC 707
21
State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: (2021) 11 SCC 191
22
P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala: (2010) 2 SCC 398
23
Shashikant Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1599
24
Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra: (1998) 7 SCC 337
25
S.S. Chhena (supra)
26
Mahendra Awase (supra)
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
the deceased or any members of his family at any stage whatsoever. The
petitioner also did not even figure in the original Chargesheet. It is an
admitted position that the only material on the basis of which the applicant
was placed in the Supplementary Chargesheet, that too in Column 12 , is the
Suicide Note, which was allegedly received at the Police Station much later
after recovery of the dead body of the deceased. In fact, it is under these
circumstances that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order
framing charges under Section 306 IPC qua the petitioner, relevant portions
thereof are reproduced as under:
“16. Coming to the present case there was a positive act and
role played by the accused persons Gulshan Kumar and
Kashmiri Lal as can be discerned prima facie from the suicide
note itself to instigate the deceased and the deceased seeing
no other option was pushed to such a position that he ended
his life as is evident from suicide note itself. There were
constant threats which were being extended by them, as
discussed earlier.
17. However, as regards other accused Arun Kumar and
his staff members Heera, Sunny and Amrit Kaur, they were
merely doing their job of seeking repayment of loan and that
act by itself cannot be deemed to be an instigation to commit
suicide nor their act can be deemed to be in close proximity.
On the contrary if they wanted to recover the loan advanced,
for the said purpose, at least, they would want that the
deceased should live and repay the loan. The mensrea (sic) to
do an act with an intention that the deceased ends his life
cannot be attributed to the staff members or the financier, in
the absence of any allegation of threat or use of unlawful
means by them made by the deceased himself. Their acts
cannot be the propelling causative factor. As regards the
supplementary statement recorded of the son of the deceased,
it is pertinent to mention that it was recorded after 07 years of
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
the demise and their names do not find mention in the suicide
note written by the deceased.
18. However, in view of specific allegations of threat and
use of unlawful means and putting pressure upon the
deceased by accused Kashmiri Lai and Gulshan Kumar and
from the aforesaid discussion and the case laws as above,
prima facie an offence U/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC is
made out against accused Gulshan Kumar and Kashmiri Lai
and it is directed that the charge be framed accordingly.’
[ Emphasis supplied ]
15. The above, alas , does not fit well in the contours required for
framing of a charge against anyone like the petitioner for an offence under
Section 306 IPC, particularly, since though the learned Trial Court has held
therein that the petitioner played a “ positive act and role ” to “ instigate ” the
deceased leaving him “ no other option ” but to end his life. This, though,
there is silence about any specific act(s) or omission by the petitioner,
neither proximal to/ directly or indirectly which resulted in the incident, or
which showed any intention on the part of the petitioner that led the
deceased to commit suicide. From the facts on record there was,
admittedly , nothing on record to show any mindful instigation, provocation,
incitement, goading, encouragement or like by the petitioner or that the
deceased was harbouring suicidal thoughts, i.e. there was thus nothing of
such a magnitude on record which could have prompted the deceased to
end his life and/ or which could be attributable to the petitioner.
16. In such a scenario, for the learned Trial Court to draw a conclusion
that the deceased had no choice but to commit suicide is far-fetched. The
same, viewed in the background of there being no whisper of any
complaint or any recourse to legal remedies taken by the deceased against
the so-called threats, even when they were barely two months before the
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39
incident, casts a suspicion about framing of charges under Section 306 IPC
qua the petitioner. This, when the only ‘ accused ’ Arun Kumar, as per the
Supplementary Chargesheet, against whom a complaint had also been filed
by the wife of the deceased alleging molestation and harassment one week
prior to the incident, was discharged on the ground of absence of mens rea
by the learned Trial Court.
17. Based on the aforesaid analysis and reasonings, framing of a charge
qua the petitioner for an offence under Section 306 IPC is not called for,
particularly, since there were/ are no sufficient grounds for framing charges
qua the petitioner for want of any specific, direct or indirect, proximal
act(s)/ omission(s) with any intention or mental element of instigation to
bring the same within the ambit of Section 306 IPC.
18. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-02, North District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.463/2011 dated
15.11.2011 registered at PS: K. N. Katju Marg framing charges for the
offence under Section 306 IPC qua the petitioner is set aside. Resultantly,
the petitioner is discharged of the offences under Sections 306/34 IPC
arising out of FIR No.463/2011 dated 15.11.2011 registered at PS: K. N.
Katju Marg.
19. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JULY 22, 2026/So
CRL.REV.P. 1268/2024 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
17:29:39