Section 306 IPC requires specific, proximate instigation; general allegations of assault or harassment do not constitute abetment.

The petitioner, nephew of the deceased’s husband, was accused in Paliganj P.S. Case No. 96 of 2023 concerning the death of the informant’s daughter, who had allegedly consumed poison after being assaulted and forcibly administered poison by her matrimonial family members.

Although the occurrence was allegedly known to the informant on 27 February 2023, the FIR was lodged on 5 March 2023.

The petitioner contended that he lived separately after partition, that the post-mortem report disclosed no external injuries, and that the investigation revealed that the deceased had voluntarily consumed poison following a family dispute.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, nevertheless took cognizance under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 29 September 2023. The petitioner sought quashing of the cognizance order and the consequential proceedings.

Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC against the petitioner?

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed where he was residing separately and there was no specific evidence of instigation, mens rea, or a proximate act driving the deceased to commit suicide?

The Court applied Section 306 of the IPC, which penalises abetment of suicide, read with Section 107 of the IPC, which requires instigation, intentional aid, or participation amounting to abetment.

The Court held that Section 306 requires proof of a direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement, accompanied by the requisite mens rea, and sufficiently proximate to the suicide so as to drive the deceased to a position where suicide appears to be the only option.

Relying on Sanju @ Sanjay Senger v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Court reiterated that mere quarrels, harassment, or isolated acts do not by themselves constitute abetment.

It further relied on Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 251, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 233, and Ayyub v. State of U.P., (2025) 3 SCC 334, for the principles that specific abetment, intention to aid or instigate, proximity, and a clear mens rea are necessary to attract Section 306 IPC.

The Court found that the statements in the FIR and those of related witnesses were largely general and repetitive, while the independent case-diary witnesses stated that the deceased had herself admitted consuming poison.

The post-mortem report disclosed no external injuries, weakening the allegation of assault.

There was no material showing that the petitioner had instigated, aided, or intentionally driven the deceased to commit suicide.

The petitioner was the deceased’s husband’s nephew and was residing separately, distinguishing his position from that of the husband and other persons living in the matrimonial home.

Even assuming that a quarrel or scuffle had occurred, the Court held that such an isolated incident, without evidence of proximate instigation or mens rea, could not satisfy Sections 107 and 306 IPC.

The alleged reason recorded in the cognizance order—that the deceased consumed a pesticide tablet after a fight—also did not establish the petitioner’s complicity.

In the absence of specific evidence of instigation, intentional aid, proximity, or guilty intention, continuation of the prosecution would have no reasonable or substantial basis.

Accordingly, the order dated 29 September 2023 taking cognizance under Section 306 IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising from Paliganj P.S. Case No. 96 of 2023, were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioner. The application was allowed.