Lodging an FIR, even if false, does not by itself amount to abetment of suicide, Supreme Court rules

The appellants—mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased—were accused under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) in FIR C.R. No. 119930042001154 of 2020 registered at Bhachau Police Station, Kutch.

The deceased was married to Shraddhaben, the daughter of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of Appellant No. 3, in 2009.

On 21 March 2020, the deceased’s brother lodged the impugned FIR, alleging that the appellants had harassed the deceased, caused his wife to leave the matrimonial home, and instigated her to lodge a false case and seek maintenance, thereby driving the deceased to suicide.

The appellants sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), but the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition on 16 September 2025.

Whether the allegations in the impugned FIR and the suicide note disclosed the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC so as to justify continuation of the criminal investigation against the appellants.

Whether lodging an FIR, initiating legal proceedings, or seeking maintenance against the deceased could, by itself, constitute instigation or abetment of suicide.

Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Section 306 IPC penalises abetment of suicide, while Section 107 IPC defines abetment as instigation, participation in a conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid to the commission of the act.

To sustain an FIR for abetment of suicide, the allegations and material must prima facie disclose one of these legally recognised forms of abetment; a mere allegation that the accused were blamed in a suicide note is insufficient.

In assessing prima facie abetment, the court must consider the suicide note together with the surrounding circumstances and examine whether the accused’s conduct would have driven an ordinary person, rather than an unusually sensitive person, to commit suicide.

The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised where the allegations and supporting material do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.

The suicide note stated that the deceased’s married life had been ruined by the appellants but contained no specific allegation of any act amounting to instigation, intentional aid, conspiracy, or harassment of such severity as to leave him with no option but to commit suicide.

The note instead indicated that the deceased was depressed by his wife’s departure from the matrimonial home and the resulting matrimonial dispute.

The Court held that the wife’s lodging of an FIR and issuance of a maintenance notice were lawful recourses available to her and could not, even if the FIR were alleged to be false, per se amount to instigation of suicide.

This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that the wife’s allegations had prima facie medical support and that the appellants lived separately from the deceased, making it difficult to infer an overbearing influence capable of driving him to suicide.

Considering the surrounding facts rather than the suicide note in isolation, the Court found that the essential ingredients of abetment were absent.

Lodging an FIR or pursuing maintenance proceedings does not, by itself, constitute instigation or abetment merely because the person proceeded against subsequently commits suicide.

The appeal was allowed, the Gujarat High Court’s order dated 16 September 2025 was set aside, and FIR C.R. No. 119930042001154 of 2020 along with all consequential proceedings was quashed.