SHREYA BASAK AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE

CRR 4048 of 2024

Shreya Basak & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Anr.


For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Aditya Tiwari


For the Opposite Party 2 : Mr. Kallok Kumar Basu
Md. Jannat Ul Firdous
Mr. Rajsekhar Hota


For the State : Mrs. Rituparna De Ghosh
Mr. Abhinaba Mukherjee


Heard on : 07.04.2026


Judgment on : 11.05.2026



Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners herein have sought for quashing of proceeding being GR
Case no. 3892 of 2022 presently pending before learned Sessions Judge,
Barasat under section 306/506/34 of the IPC.
2. Petitioners’ case is that deceased Arijit Samaddar had married
petitioner no. 1 herein on 01.12.2021. Petitioner no. 2 is the father of the
1

petitioner no.1. Their further case is that soon after the marriage the
petitioner no.1 discovered that her husband had epidermoid cysts covering
both his scrotums, which he did not disclose to the petitioner no.1 prior to
that marriage. She time and again requested her husband to consult
physicians in order to have the said disease medically treated and cured.
But the deceased was indifferent and refused to consult any doctor and on
the contrary he used to ask the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home.
Finding no other alternative the petitioner no.1 was constrained to leave her
matrimonial home in the month of February, 2022 mainly due to indifferent
attitude of her husband, though she had not initiated any litigation against
her husband
nd
3. Further case of the petitioners is that on 2 July, 2022 petitioner
no.1 went to her matrimonial home but her husband/deceased refused to
reconcile and as such she left her matrimonial home along with her
nd
belongings on that very day. Therefore, after 2 July 2022, the petitioner
no.1 had no occasion to either physically meet or to speak to her husband.
Unfortunately said husband of petitioner no.1 committed suicide on
19.09.2022 at his own residence

4. Opposite Party (in short OP) No.2 then lodged the instant FIR, alleging
interalia that on 18.02.2022 the petitioner no.1 herein left her matrimonial
home along with 5/6 bags and at that time the son of op No.2 namely
deceased Arijit Samadder requested the petitioner to come back. However
she informed that she was unwilling to resume matrimonial tie with him. On
02.07.2022 the petitioner no.1 along with her father, uncle and friend had
come to her matrimonial home and brought back her articles and also gave
2

an acknowledgement receipt in her own hand writing. On 19.9.2022 said
Arijit Committed suicide by hanging. After returning home defacto
complainant found a diary wherein deceased had written that the petitioner
no.1 and her relations are responsible for the death.
5. Being aggrieved by instant proceeding learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Gangully submits that from a bare perusal of suicide note of
the deceased and seizure list and the handwriting expert’s report dated
02.12.2022, it appears that even if such alleged suicide note is taken to be
uncontroverted, the same does not make out any case of abatement to
suicide. Infact the version of the Opposite Party in the impugned FIR that in
the suicide note the deceased had held the petitioners responsible for his
death, has been proved to be incorrect and malicious.
6. He further argued that from the FIR itself it is clear that the petitioner
no.1 left her matrimonial home in February, 2022. Thereafter she went back
to her matrimonial home on 02.07.2022, when she had to execute a receipt
in writing while taking back some of her articles. Thus, after 02.07.2022 the
petitioner no.1 had no occasion to either physically meet or spoke to her
husband Arijit Samadder, who committed suicide two and half months
thereafter i.e. on 19.09.2022 at his own residence where his parents namely
the OP no.2 herein and his wife were only present. Therefore there is no live
link and/or proximity of any act or omission of the petitioners with the
purported suicide on 19.09.2022.
7. He further argued that nowhere in the FIR, charge sheet or the
materials on record, it discloses any positive act or conduct of the petitioner
which might have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute
3

the offence of abetment as specified under section 107 of the IPC, the state
of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea there has to be something on record
to establish that the petitioners herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance
of which they abated the suicide of the deceased. The ingredients of mens
rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and
conspicuous. In the absence of any positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, a case under section 306 of the IPC
cannot be sustained. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there
being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of
the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, no case of
abatement to commit suicide, is made out.
8. He further argued that in the instant case there appears to be no
nexus between the so called suicide and any of the alleged acts on the part
of the petitioners. There is no proximity either. Petitioners are absolutely
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case due to grudge
and to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to shield himself and his wife
from being prosecuted. Therefore continuation of the impugned proceeding
any further shall amount to abuse of process of the court and it is expedient
in the interest of justice that the impugned proceeding shall be quashed.
9. Learned Counsel for the Opposite party no.2, Mr. Basu. argued that
the son of the Opposite party No.2 had pimples on his private part but not
virulent in nature nor infectious and he was capable of making physical
relationship. On 25.02.2022 when the deceased husband went to the wife’s
paternal home at Barrackpore to take her back the petitioner no.1, abused
4

her. On 06.03.2022 deceased again went there but he was insulted. On
10.09.2022 both the petitioners threatened the victim. Thereafter on
19.09.2022 victim committed suicide. He further submits that aforesaid
facts are required to be proved during trial at an appropriate stage
10. Mr. Basu further argued that reason for committing suicide was that
the petitioners caused immense mental torture and subjected the son of the
OP No.2 to mental cruelty. Petitioner no.1 put the victim in such
embarrassing condition that he had to commit suicide. It is further alleged
by the counsel for the OP that the petitioner took photograph of the pimples
of victim’s private part and made it viral. Two dairies were found lying on a
table and in one diary the suicide note was found with direct allegation
against the petitioners and others. Police seized both the diaries. However,
reason best known to the investigating agency, they have not used the
suicide note as necessary materials in the charge-sheet and the writing of
the victim and entries in the said diaries have not been made part of the
charge sheet. In such circumstances those diaries are required to be
consulted and therefore he prayed for rejection of the instant Revisional
Application.
Decision
11. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the prosecution case is entirely
based on the suicide note, left behind by the deceased. Said suicide note
was written in Bengali. The sum and substance of the suicide note is that
the victim got tired due to suffering of mental pain since November, 2022.
nd
On 2 July, one picture, calling it as his private part has been circulated to
all. Victim’s parents were also tortured and heckled by the family members
5

of the other side. Therefore, such condition has become unbearable for the
victim, so he has decided to kill himself. He made folllowing persons
responsible in the suicide note;
(i) Shreya Basak (wife)
(ii) Payel Basak (her elder sister)
(iii) Sushovan Basak (husband of her elder sister)

(iv) Jatan Basak (father-in-law of her elder sister)

(v) Ranjit Basak (her father)
12. During investigation police has examined four witnesses, out of which
one of the relative of victim namely Jayanta Das has stated to police that
due to insult by calling him impotent, victim decided to kill himself.
Caretaker of the housing Goutam Mistry stated before police that said victim
loved his wife too much but as she left matrimonial house, he has chosen to
kill himself. Another caretaker Kokhan Mondal stated to police that he has
heard from the parents of the victim that he committed suicide because of
his wife. The other witness is seizure witness. Post mortem report states
‘death is due to the effect of ‘asphyxia’ resulting from anti mortem hanging’.
13. It is not in dispute that petitioner/wife left her matrimonial home in
February, 2022 and thereafter only on one occasion she went to her
matrimonial house on 02.07.2022, to bring her belongings, when allegedly
victim refused to reconcile. It is the specific case of the petitioner/wife that
after 02.07.2022 she had no occasion to either physically meet or speak to
her husband/victim, who unfortunately committed suicide on 19.09.2022 at
his own residence where only his parents were present. There is nothing to
show that the petitioners herein threatened the victim on 10.09.2022. In the
6

suicide note, not only the petitioner no.1/wife is stated to be responsible but
it also includes her father her married elder sister and her relatives and
following the names appearing in the suicide note, all of them have been
made accused in the criminal proceeding and have been charge-sheeted by
the investigating agency.
14. There is absolutely no averment in the suicide note that the present
petitioners had caused any harm to victim nor how each of them were
responsible for abetting the victim to commit suicide. At best it appears that
victim was very much dissatisfied with his wife and her family members but
it may also be noticed that victim did not meet or speak to any of the
accused persons after 02.07.2022
15. An offence under section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an
abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of ‘abetment’
have been stated in section 107 of the IPC which states that a person abets
the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing or 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 or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal
omission.
16. In the alleged suicide note, except referring to the name of the
petitioners, there appears to be no reference of any act or incidents whereby
the petitioners herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission
or intentionally aided or instigated the victim in committing the act of
suicide. There is no case that any of the petitioners have played any part or
7

any role in any conspiracy which ultimately instigated or resulted in the
commission of the suicide by deceased Arijit Samadder.
17. Infact the impugned proceeding registered against the petitioners/
accused persons without any factual foundation. The contents of suicide
note do not in any way make out the offence against accused persons.
‘Abetment of a thing’ has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code. I deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107 which reads as under.
“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.
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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant
from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not
Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
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
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

18. In Ramesh Kumar Case, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Supreme
Court had examined different shades of the meaning of instigation. Para 20
of the judgment reads as follows:-
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".
To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual
words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation
may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

8

19. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal reported in (1994) 1
SCC 73, Supreme Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim, had in fact induced him to end his life by
committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
domestic life, quite common to the society to which he belonged and such
petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty
20. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605
the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment, where
the Court held that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage
the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidality pattern is
different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and
self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
21. Various authorities on this point has made it clear that in order to
convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and this act must have been
9

intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide.
22. In this context it also needs to be reiterated that the essential
ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC are as follow:-
(i) the abetment

(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide.


23. The Act of the petitioners two and half months back even if tend to
insultative to the deceased due to using any abusive language by any of
them, will not by itself constitutes the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the accused persons intended by such
act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, there is hardly any
chance of conviction of the petitioners under section 306 of IPC
24. In the instant case, victim might had hypersensitiveness to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences in marital life, which is otherwise quite
common to the society to which the victim belonged, but such discord in
matrimonial life are not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide. No material has been placed
before me by the prosecution to suggest that any of the accused persons had
any intention to provoke insight or encourage the doing of the act by the
latter. Moreover during investigation it has also not been revealed as to who
circulated picture, calling it as private part of the victim or how it was
circulated. On careful assessment of the evidence on record, I find that there
appears to be no direct evidence to show that the petitioners jointly or any of
10

the petitioners had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to
commit suicide or has not done any act which could be said to have
facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. Since there is nothing
to indicate even prima facie that any of the accused intended the
consequence of the act i.e. committing suicide, it is no answer to say that
whether accused persons had such intention or not can be gathered only
after full-fledged trial

25. On perusal of suicidal note it appears that the deceased might have
got frustrated due to marital discord and it may also be that, he became
apprehensive about any insultation and/or any insultation that might be
inflicted to his family members. However, such apprehensions/fear of
insultation may led to frustration, which has been expressed in suicide note
but by no stretch of imagination it can be considered sufficient to attribute
to the petitioners an act or omission constituting the element of abetment to
commit suicide.
26. The fact of the instant case are identical in many respect with the case
of Shenbagavalli and Ors. Vs. Inspector Of Police Kancheepuram
District , reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 987 where the fact of the case
was that soon after the marriage relationship between the couple detoriated.
It was alleged that on 10.11.2013, accused no. 1 to 6 came to the residence
of the deceased and had a quarrel. They not only abused the deceased and
his family with filthy language but also insulted the deceased by calling him
impotent and infertile. The prosecution case was based on the assertion that
the deceased was continuously subjected to harassment by accused no. 1 to
7, owing to which victim committed suicide on 09.12.2013. The FIR was
11

registered under section 306 of IPC and on completion of investigation a
charge sheet was filed. On presentation of the charge sheet, a petition under
section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred before the High Court challenging the
impugned criminal proceeding under section 306 IPC on the ground that no
offence under that section is made out even going by the alleged suicide
note, which was written on a torn page of the diary being maintained by the
deceased. The High Court after considering submissions made by the parties
proceeded to dismiss the application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
27. When the matter came up before the Apex Court, it noted that going
by the suicide note accused no 7 along with two others had visited the
houses of the deceased only once before the incident i.e. on 10.11.2013 and
thereafter there has been no further contact with them. There is nothing on
record to indicate that on the date of the unfortunate incident or anytime in
close proximity thereof there was any act of instigation on the part of the
appellants. The language employed in the suicide note does not reflect any
direct inducement that left the deceased with no other recourse but to take
such an extreme step. A reading of the contents of the suicide note suggests
that the deceased may have been emotionally sensitive and possibly reacted
with disproportionate gravity to the events in question. While the remark
allegedly made, questioning the manhood of the deceased could be hurtful
and may affect a person’s dignity but it cannot, in itself and especially after
a gap of nearly a month between the incident and the suicide be considered
as a sufficient provocation that would impel an ordinary reasonable person
to take such an irrevocable step.
12

28. While disposing the said case, Supreme Court has made clear
observation that merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment and
that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on
the part of the appellants till the time of the occurrence, which can be said
to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence
has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be
ostensibly present and visible which is missing in the present case. It
involves a mental process of instigating a persons and without a positive act
on the part of the appellants which cannot be said to either to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot be said to
have been present.
29. On the other hand to constitute offence under section 506 of the IPC
the following ingredients are required to be satisfied
(i) the accused threatened someone with injury to his person reputation or
property or to the person reputation or property of another in whom the
former was interested.
(ii) the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of the offence
(iii) the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was
not legally bound to do.

For the reasons discussed above any of the ingredients of section 506 of IPC
has also not been established in the present case and therefore continuance
of further proceeding under section 506 of IPC also would be mere abuse of
the process of the court.

30. Therefore even if all evidence on record, including the charge sheet
and the witness statements are taken to be correct, there is no iota of
evidence against the petitioners. I find that the acts of the petitioners, if any,
are too remote and indirect to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC.
This is also because there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of a
13

nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the
unfortunate act of committing suicide. Even if the petitioner/wife expressed
her dis approval towards restitution of marital relationship with deceased
and had allegedly made any remark, such as questioning the manhood of
the deceased, it does not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a
positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an
edge, in order to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioners.

31. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding in my view
would be mere abuse of the process of the court, as also there is hardly any
chance of conviction of any of the petitioners at the end of trial, on the basis
of available materials.
32. CRR 4048 of 2024 is allowed.
33. The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 3892 of 2022 arising out
of Eco Park Police Station Case no. 222 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 presently
pending before learned Sessions Judge, Barasat is hereby quashed.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
14