A married woman’s suicide within seven years, coupled with cruelty, permits a presumption of abetment.

The petitioner married the informant’s daughter on 14 July 2024.

She died by suicide on 26 July 2025, within seven years of the marriage.

The police registered a case against the petitioner and his parents and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet alleging offences under Sections 85, 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The JMFC took cognizance of those offences and issued non-bailable warrants.

The petitioner challenged the cognizance order, contending that the allegations were omnibus and unsupported by sufficient material; he also questioned the issuance of warrants.

The informant relied, among other matters, on an earlier FIR lodged by the deceased against the petitioner alleging cruelty.

1. Whether the JMFC’s order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 85, 108 and 3(5) of the BNS was illegal or otherwise liable to be set aside.

2. Whether the Court should interfere with the issuance of non-bailable warrants, which the petitioner also challenged in argument, although the revision was stated to challenge the cognizance order.

Section 85 of the BNS concerns cruelty by a husband or his relative, while Section 108 concerns abetment of suicide; Section 3(5) addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), corresponding to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, permits the court, having regard to all the circumstances, to presume abetment of suicide by a husband or his relative where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty.

The Court also referred to Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its corresponding provision, Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which empower a Magistrate to take cognizance on a police report or other specified grounds.

The Court noted that the marriage and the suicide within seven years were undisputed, and that witness statements and the charge-sheet contained material alleging cruelty by the petitioner.

It also considered the earlier FIR lodged by the deceased against him as relevant context.

In light of those materials and the statutory provision permitting a presumption of abetment in the specified circumstances, the Court found no illegality in the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance.

Although the petitioner separately questioned the non-bailable warrants, the Court’s stated conclusion addressed the legality of the impugned cognizance order; it did not separately analyse the legal standard for issuing warrants.