P&H HC Quashes Suicide-Abetment FIR Over ₹15 Lakh Dispute, Finding No Recent Instigation By Accused

The complainant’s husband died after consuming sleeping pills. A note found among his belongings referred to a money dispute involving petitioner Satnam Singh and his son, alleged threats, and the deceased’s belief that they were responsible for his death.

The complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 108 and 353(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relying on a compromise between the parties; the Magistrate reported that it was genuine and voluntary.

The petitioners also argued that the FIR and note did not disclose the ingredients of abetment of suicide.

Section 108 BNS corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Abetment of suicide requires an active or positive act of instigation or intentional aid, accompanied by the requisite mens rea; mere harassment, without a proximate positive act, is insufficient (Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605; Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750).

Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, applying the principles in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

The Court distinguished Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 117, which concerned quashing an abetment-of-suicide FIR merely on the basis of a financial settlement.

The note described a money dispute and an undated threat, but the Court found no specific act by the petitioners proximate to the deceased’s suicide, nor any positive act of instigation or intentional aid. Petitioner No. 2 was not named in the note, and the FIR recorded that the deceased had been depressed for several days.

The Court therefore concluded that the allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of abetment of suicide. It also treated the dispute as essentially private and noted that the compromise was not a financial settlement. The compromise supported, but was not the primary basis for, quashing; the principal basis was the absence of the offence’s ingredients.

The parties remained bound by the compromise and their statements before the Magistrate.