Abetment of suicide requires proximate instigation, clear mens rea, and a positive act.

The petitioner, who was In-charge of Police Station I.T.I., Kashipur, challenged the chargesheet dated 4 April 2026 arising from FIR No. 0013 of 2026 dated 12 January 2026.

The FIR followed the suicide of the complainant’s brother in the intervening night of 10–11 January 2026 and alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner had misbehaved with the deceased and his family on 28 September 2025, demanded and received ₹5 lakhs for assisting them in recovering money allegedly paid in a property transaction, and subsequently threatened the deceased with false implication or death in custody.

The petitioner was chargesheeted under Sections 108, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

He contended that the CCTV footage did not show any misbehaviour, that the relevant complaint had been marked to another Sub-Inspector, that he was not present at the police station on the dates on which the ₹5 lakhs was allegedly paid, and that the deceased’s last complaint contained no allegation against him.

1. Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS read with Section 45 BNS against the petitioner?

2. Whether the material disclosed offences of criminal intimidation and intentional insult or provocation under Sections 351(2) and 352 BNS?

3. Whether the FIR and chargesheet were liable to be quashed qua the petitioner in exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 108 BNS, which penalises abetment of suicide, together with Section 45 BNS, under which abetment requires instigation, participation in a conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid.

The Court held that abetment of suicide requires clear mens rea, a positive, active, direct or indirect act of instigation or intentional aid, and conduct sufficiently proximate to the suicide that placed the deceased in a position where he had no other option.

Relying on S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, M. Mohan v. State, Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, and Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated that mere harassment, misbehaviour, or an allegation of wrongdoing does not constitute abetment unless accompanied by a positive and proximate act intended to drive the deceased to suicide.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner primarily concerned alleged misbehaviour on 28 September 2025 and the receipt of ₹5 lakhs.

Even if these allegations were accepted, they did not establish a positive or active act of instigation, intentional aid, or the requisite mens rea contemplated by Sections 45 and 108 BNS.

The alleged conduct was not shown to be proximate to the suicide or to have compelled the deceased to take that step.

The Court further noted that the deceased had travelled with his wife and son shortly before the incident and appeared to be in a happy frame of mind; he thereafter committed suicide while they were sleeping in the same room.

On the material placed before it, the Court found neither evidence of mens rea to abet suicide nor sufficient evidence of criminal intimidation against the petitioner.

The writ petition was allowed, and FIR No. 0013 of 2026 dated 12 January 2026 and the chargesheet dated 4 April 2026 were quashed qua the petitioner, Kundan Singh.