Charge of Abetment to Suicide is Legally Unsustainable Without the Actual Commission of Suicide.

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (husband and wife) had a domestic dispute on October 20, 2025, during which the Petitioner, in an inebriated state, allegedly assaulted the Respondent.

Respondent No. 2 attempted suicide by jumping from the second floor of their house, resulting in orthopedic injuries but not death.

The Banaswadi Police registered an FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 108 (Abetment of suicide), 62, 85, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Petitioner remained in custody for six months.

During the proceedings, the parties reconciled and filed a joint memo to quench the criminal proceedings based on a settlement.

1. Whether a charge under Section 108 of the BNS (Abetment of suicide) can be sustained when the victim is alive.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings based on a matrimonial settlement despite the gravity of the initial charges.

The Court primarily applied Section 108 of the BNS, 2023, which mandates that culpability for abetment of suicide arises only "if any person commits suicide".

The provision is not elastic and requires the prerequisite of an actual death.

The Court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes where parties have settled to ensure justice and harmony.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s invocation of Section 108 BNS was "reckless" and a "glaring manifestation of non-application of mind" because the victim (the wife) was alive and present in court.

Since Section 108 specifically punishes abetment of a suicide that has occurred, registering a case and filing a charge sheet for this offence in the absence of a death was found to be legally non-existent and an abuse of authority.

The Court critiqued the Investigating Officer for the "mechanical prosecution" that led to the Petitioner’s six-month incarceration.

Furthermore, applying the principles of restorative justice in matrimonial matters, the Court noted that since the parties had buried their differences and sought a reunion, continuing the criminal trial would be a futile exercise and a "needless agony".

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.52473/2026. The Petitioner was ordered to be released from prison forthwith.

The Court directed the Competent Authority to initiate a meaningful departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer for professional irresponsibility and ignorance of the elementary ingredients of the law, with a report due within three months.