Section 306 IPC requires proof of intentional instigation or aid; mere harassment, scolding, or presumption is insufficient.

The deceased, daughter of the informant, travelled from Mumbai Nagar towards Rishikesh for a Yoga M.A. examination. The applicant, described as her uncle, met her at Haridwar and took her towards Chilla Dam instead of Rishikesh.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased and the applicant were intoxicated, that the applicant may have administered an intoxicant or threatened to defame her, and that she consequently jumped into a canal and died. An FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Lakshman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal.

During investigation, the informant stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had no material to suggest that the applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of witnesses Avadh Kishore and Arti recorded that the deceased suddenly jumped into the canal.

A charge-sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC, cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 306 IPC on 24 February 2022, relying, inter alia, on an alleged relationship between the applicant and the deceased, the age difference between them, and the surrounding circumstances.

The applicant challenged the framing order and charge under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC so as to justify framing a charge against the applicant

Whether the Sessions Court’s order framing the charge was based on evidence or on impermissible presumptions and assumptions

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the framing order and the charge where the prosecution material did not disclose instigation, intentional aid, mens rea, or any active or direct act leading to the suicide

Section 306 IPC criminalises abetment of suicide, while Section 107 IPC defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid.

Abetment requires a positive or active act, a mental process of instigation or intentional aid, and the requisite mens rea; mere harassment, scolding, insulting conduct, or the fact that a person committed suicide in the accused’s presence is insufficient without a direct or proximate act intended to push the deceased towards suicide.

The Court relied on Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., and Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, which emphasise that prosecution must establish instigation or intentional aid and that proceedings may be quashed where the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are absent.

In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court applied the principles in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur concerning quashing where unimpeachable material demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court found that neither the FIR, the informant’s Section 161 statement, the witness statements, nor the charge-sheet contained specific evidence that the applicant instigated, aided, or intentionally compelled the deceased to commit suicide.

The informant herself stated that there was no material showing instigation, and the eyewitness material merely indicated that the deceased suddenly jumped into the canal.

The allegation that the applicant scolded or slapped the deceased was either unsupported by direct evidence or constituted, at most, hearsay; it did not establish the mens rea or proximate active act required under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.

The charge-sheet’s assertion that the incident might not have occurred had the applicant not been intoxicated or had he taken the deceased to Rishikesh was treated as conjectural and not as evidence of abetment.

The Sessions Court improperly relied on an alleged illicit relationship and the age difference between the parties, despite the absence of supporting evidence, and therefore its finding was held to be dehors the record and based on presumptions and assumptions.

Since the essential element of abetment was absent, continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.

The Sessions Court’s order dated 24 February 2022 framing the charge and the charge itself under Section 306 IPC were quashed and set aside, and the applicant was discharged.