Non-payment of dues without active instigation or mens rea does not constitute abetment of suicide.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. CR–I–32/2018 registered under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 114 of the IPC.

The complainant (Respondent No. 2), widow of Alpeshbhai Thakkar, alleged that her husband committed suicide due to financial distress caused by non-payment of dues amounting to ₹14,64,305/- by the applicant’s company following construction work completed in 2013.

The applicant contended that business dealings with the deceased had ended in 2010, the accounts were settled, and no work had been provided for eight years prior to the incident.

The deceased left a message in a WhatsApp group called "Alwida" before consuming poison on April 16, 2018.

There was a delay of over 15 days in lodging the FIR after the complainant was discharged from the hospital.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material on record disclose the essential ingredients of "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Whether the non-payment of alleged business dues, without any further active or direct act of provocation, constitutes instigation to commit suicide.

The court primarily applied Section 306 of the IPC regarding abetment of suicide and Section 107 of the IPC defining "abetment".

For Section 306 to apply, there must be a clear mens rea and an active, direct act that pushes the deceased into a position where suicide is the only option.

Mere harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence cannot sustain a conviction.

Words uttered in a fit of anger do not constitute instigation unless there is a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence.

The court found that the FIR failed to establish a "continued course of conduct" or any specific act of instigation by the applicant proximate to the suicide.

The record indicated that the applicant had no business transactions with the deceased since 2010, rendering the claim of financial pressure dubious.

For "instigation" to be proved, the accused must have goaded, urged forward, or provoked the deceased into taking the extreme step; here, the mere alleged outstanding payment from a contract five years prior did not meet this threshold.

There was no evidence of the deceased visiting the applicant immediately before the incident, nor was there any "proximity or link" between the applicant’s conduct and the suicide.

The FIR against other co-accused with similar roles had already been quashed by the High Court in previous proceedings.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside FIR No. CR–I–32/2018 and all consequential proceedings against the applicant.