Lawful departmental action, without intentional instigation or aid, does not constitute abetment of suicide.

Shivraj Singh and his wife, Nirmala Singh, allegedly committed suicide by hanging at their residence on 1 March 2024.

On the complaint of respondent No. 2, Crime No. 34/2025 was registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli, on 8 January 2025 against the petitioners and other persons under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.

Petitioner No. 2, Rajni Gupta, had earlier complained that Shivraj Singh had consumed liquor during office hours, abused and threatened her, and carried an axe.

A departmental enquiry was initiated, police protection was sought, and Shivraj Singh’s services were terminated on 19 February 2024.

Petitioner No. 2 subsequently lodged a police complaint against him, resulting in registration of Crime No. 30/2024 under Sections 294, 506 and 509 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC.

They also relied on an earlier decision quashing the same FIR against similarly placed co-accused persons on the ground of parity.

1. Whether the allegations in FIR Crime No. 34/2025 and the accompanying material disclose the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC against the petitioners?

2. Whether the petitioners’ initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against the deceased, without more, could constitute instigation or intentional aid for the purposes of Section 306 IPC?

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to quashing of the proceedings on the basis of parity with co-accused persons whose prosecution arising from the same FIR had already been quashed?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC require proof of abetment through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid; suicide by itself is insufficient to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC.

Relying on Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Court held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased, requiring mens rea and a positive act having a proximate connection with the suicide.

Mere harassment, reference to a person’s name in a suicide note, or allegations of misconduct, without the requisite intention and positive act of instigation or intentional aid, does not automatically constitute abetment.

The Court also applied the principle of parity where similarly situated co-accused in the same FIR had already obtained quashing relief and no distinguishing material was shown.

The Court held that, even if the allegations in the FIR, suicide note and investigation material were accepted at face value, they did not identify any specific positive act by the petitioners intended to instigate or aid Shivraj Singh’s suicide.

The material instead showed that petitioner No. 2 had responded to the deceased’s alleged misconduct through lawful departmental complaints, requests for police protection and criminal proceedings.

The initiation of lawful disciplinary or criminal action could not, without additional conduct demonstrating mens rea and a proximate nexus to the suicide, amount to abetment under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.

Further, the factual foundation and allegations were substantially identical to those considered in the earlier case where proceedings against co-accused persons had been quashed; the State failed to identify any distinct overt act or additional incriminating material against the present petitioners.

Accordingly, continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

It held that the material did not disclose the necessary mens rea, instigation, intentional aid or proximate connection required to constitute an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC.

Applying the principle of parity, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Crime No. 34/2025 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli, insofar as it related to the petitioners, together with all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet, if filed.