Financial exploitation and threats of social humiliation preclude quashing of FIR for abetment of suicide.

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 11210048260191 of 2026, registered at Umra Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 108 (Abetment of suicide) and 308(2) (Extortion) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The deceased committed suicide on 31.01.2026.

The complainant (deceased’s daughter) alleged that the petitioner had been in an illicit relationship with the deceased for 15 years and was exploiting him financially and mentally.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner had coerced the deceased into giving her a 50% partnership in a school and transferring two shops to her name.

In July 2025, the petitioner allegedly threatened the deceased’s daughters that she would make the deceased's life "hell" and humiliate him in society if she did not receive 50% of his total property.

On the day of the suicide, a three-minute phone call took place between the petitioner and the deceased, after which the deceased expressed to his daughter that he was being threatened and "had lost".

The petitioner argued that there was no proximate cause, the FIR was delayed by 21 days, and the business dealings were from 2018.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) for failure to disclose a prima facie case.

2. Whether the allegations regarding financial exploitation and threats constitute a proximate cause for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

The court addressed the substantive offences under Section 108 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 308(2) (Extortion) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court considered the legal standard for "abetment," which requires an active act or direct instigation that led the deceased to commit suicide.

The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police (2025) and M. Mohan v. State (2011), to argue the absence of proximate instigation.

The court observed that the investigation was at a "nascent stage" and found significant prima facie evidence of constant harassment.

It noted that the petitioner and her family (parents and sister) had siphoned approximately ₹2.24 Crores from the deceased’s school business despite not being employees.

Witness statements from a Chartered Accountant and a business partner supported the claims of financial exploitation and the deceased’s mental distress.

Regarding the "proximity" of the suicide, the court highlighted the timing: the deceased was under immense pressure just days before his daughter's wedding.

The statement of the petitioner's sister confirmed that the petitioner was pressuring the deceased to continue the relationship against his will.

The court reasoned that the telephonic conversation on the day of the suicide, followed by the deceased's confession to his daughter regarding threats to humiliate him at the wedding, required a full investigation and could not be dismissed at the threshold.

The court found the petition to be devoid of merit as the investigation was still ongoing.

Consequently, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Special Criminal Application for quashing the FIR.