Absent specific instigation or aid, a sibling cannot be vicariously liable for suicide abetment.

The deceased, Varalakshmi, had been in a relationship with accused No. 1, who allegedly promised to marry her and borrowed her gold and money, but later failed to marry her.

She died by suicide on 27 October 2019. Her mother’s complaint alleged that the petitioner, accused No. 1’s sister, had insisted that he not marry the deceased.

After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against both accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings against her under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials disclosed the petitioner’s abetment of the deceased’s suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC

Section 306 IPC requires an allegation of a direct or indirect act of incitement to suicide; mere harassment is insufficient unless the accused’s actions are alleged to have compelled the deceased to take that step.

The court relied on Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) 19 SCC 144, which also requires assessment of the facts, surrounding circumstances and the deceased’s circumstances, and cautions against finding abetment where the alleged conduct would not ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide.

The court further stated that criminal liability is not vicarious merely because of a familial relationship.

The complaint alleged only that the petitioner had not properly advised accused No. 1 to marry the deceased.

Neither the complaint nor the witness statements attributed to her any specific act of instigation, aid or incitement connected to the suicide.

Applying the requirements of Section 306 IPC and the principle in Geo Varghese, the court held that the petitioner could not be held liable merely because she was accused No. 1’s sister, and that the materials, even taken at face value, did not make out the offence against her.

It directed that the proceedings continue against accused No. 1 and that the trial court complete the trial within six months.