Mere Presence and Professional Media Engagement in Character Assassination Suicide Cases Require Investigation, Precluding Quashment.

The petitioners, an advocate (A7) and a journalist (A6), sought to quash FIR No. 194/2026 registered under Section 108 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant’s daughter (the deceased) committed suicide following a series of events where Accused No. 1 (A1), who was HIV positive, allegedly injected her with his blood using a syringe after she refused to marry him.

Subsequently, A6 (representing Vedhan Media TV) conducted an interview with A1's family in the presence of A7 (A1's legal counsel), during which they allegedly assassinated the character of the deceased.

This interview was uploaded to YouTube and social media, leading to severe mental distress for the deceased.

A five-page suicide note and a selfie video were recovered, specifically naming the accused as responsible for her death.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the suicide note prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of "abetment of suicide" under Section 108 of the BNS against the petitioners

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the investigation at a nascent stage when specific roles are attributed to the petitioners

The Court primarily applied Section 108 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding inherent powers of the High Court.

It relied on Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal, which defines "instigation" as a positive act with a live link to the suicide.

Furthermore, it applied the restrictive guidelines for quashing FIRs established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which mandates quashing only if allegations disclose no offence.

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautions against scuttling investigations into cognizable offences at the threshold.

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that their actions (legal representation and journalism) were merely professional duties without mens rea.

It noted that the FIR and the seized suicide note contained specific allegations that the petitioners participated in a conspiracy to assassinate the character of the deceased via a public interview, which directly prompted the suicide.

The Court distinguished the present facts from the Laxmi Das precedent, finding that here, the character assassination on social media constituted a prima facie "proximate and intentional act".

Since the investigation was ongoing and statements from other accused (A2, A3, and A5) implicated the petitioners, the Court held that truthfulness of the allegations is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Following the Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure doctrines, the Court refused to quash the proceedings as the investigation is in progress and the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts.

The Court answered the issues in the negative and dismissed both criminal petitions. The prayer to quash FIR No. 194/2026 was denied.