Section 306 IPC proceedings cannot continue absent proximate conduct abetting or instigating suicide.

The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), based on an allegation that they assaulted and abused Nagaraj in public on 18 March 2022 and told him to “go and die”; Nagaraj died by suicide on 24 March 2022.

A separate prosecution relating to the alleged incident resulted in the petitioners’ acquittal after trial.

The trial court noted material discrepancies in the witnesses’ evidence and insufficient proof of the alleged assault and related offences.

The petitioners then sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 21314/2023 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Whether the alleged conduct attributed to the petitioners disclosed the necessary proximity and nexus to Nagaraj’s suicide, and amounted to aiding, abetting, or instigating him to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Whether, in light of the materials on record and the acquittal in the separate prosecution arising from the alleged incident, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 306 IPC requires conduct that aids, abets, or instigates the deceased to commit suicide; the alleged act must have a proximity and nexus to the death.

Section 34 IPC concerns joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the allegation that the petitioners’ public assault and abuse preceded Nagaraj’s suicide, but found the necessary proximity, nexus, and connection to any act of aiding, abetting, or instigating suicide absent from the materials against the petitioners.

It also took account of the acquittal in the separate case concerning the alleged assault and the trial court’s findings of material discrepancies and insufficient evidence.

In those circumstances, the Court held that continuing the Section 306 IPC proceedings would be an abuse of process.