Section 306 IPC requires proximate, intentional instigation; vague harassment allegations cannot sustain prosecution.

The applicant, a police constable posted at Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat, sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) of FIR C.R. No. 11210063220289 of 2022, registered at Singalpor Police Station, Surat City, for offences under Sections 306, 323, 330 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, brother of the complainant, was falsely implicated in a diamond-theft case, called to the police station on several occasions, and severely beaten by the applicant and other police personnel. The deceased thereafter consumed poison, was taken to hospital, and died during treatment.

The applicant contended that he had merely participated in interrogation as part of his official duties, that the ingredients of abetment of suicide and the other alleged offences were absent, and that the FIR against co-accused Vipulbhai Nanjibhai Moradiya had already been quashed by a coordinate Bench.

The complainant subsequently settled the dispute and filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to quashing the FIR against the applicant.

Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, or otherwise constituted the alleged offences against the applicant?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in view of the absence of a prima facie case and the parties’ settlement?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the seven illustrative categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly the principles that quashing is justified where the FIR, even if accepted in its entirety, does not prima facie constitute an offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

For Section 306 IPC, the Court applied the requirement that abetment under Section 107 IPC must involve intentional instigation, aid, or a proximate act demonstrating the accused’s mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide.

Relying on Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 233, the Court held that harassment or pressure, by itself, is insufficient; there must be a proximate prior act directly connected with the suicide and a conscious, deliberate intention to instigate or aid it.

The Court found that the FIR alleged that the applicant had beaten the deceased during police questioning on 25 May 2022 and that the deceased later committed suicide, but it did not specify the applicant’s precise role, any particular words or conduct amounting to instigation, or any overt act demonstrating the requisite mens rea.

Applying Abhinav Mohan Delkar, the Court held that even assuming the applicant had exerted pressure during interrogation, the FIR did not establish a proximate act constituting the direct cause of the suicide or a deliberate intention to drive the deceased to take his own life.

The Court therefore concluded that the allegations did not prima facie satisfy Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC and that requiring the applicant to undergo trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The settlement, the complainant’s affidavit of no objection, and the earlier quashing of the proceedings against the co-accused further supported the conclusion that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The Rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.