Section 306 prosecution cannot proceed absent prima facie evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

The deceased, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, was married to petitioner No. 3; petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were his parents-in-law. The informant alleged that the petitioners had pressured the deceased to partition family property and that matrimonial discord had followed.

After the deceased went missing and was believed to have drowned in the Ganga, the informant lodged an FIR alleging kidnapping for ransom and murder. Following investigation, the police submitted a final form exonerating the petitioners for want of evidence, which the court accepted.

The informant’s protest-cum-complaint was registered as a complaint case; after examining the complainant and inquiry witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 306/34 IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of that order.

1. Whether the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, and the inquiry witnesses’ statements disclosed a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners.

2. Whether, in light of the materials before the Magistrate and the police final form, continuation of the complaint proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Section 306 IPC requires material indicating abetment of suicide; the court identified instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding as relevant forms of abetment.

The Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint and supporting material before summoning an accused; the petitioners cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, in support of quashing and the need for judicial application of mind.

The court found that neither the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, nor the inquiry witnesses’ statements disclosed instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the petitioners. The alleged independent witnesses to the quarrel had not been examined, and the complainant’s account indicated that the deceased slipped from the riverbank and fell into the river.

The court further noted that the police investigation had resulted in a final form exonerating the petitioners for lack of evidence. On these materials, the court concluded that the allegations did not make out the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC and that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

It quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 2 March 2017 taking cognizance against the petitioners in C.A. Case No. 519 of 2013 and allowed the application.