# Sharad Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 589
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6982 of 2017
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharad-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52899
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 107 & 306-no evidence in the case
of alleged abetment of suicide - no active act
shown on the part of the applicants - the loan
was sanctioned in the name of the deceased,
who could not repay the same-the applicants
being brothers could not have been held
responsible for abetment in commission of
suicide by the deceased- no evidence to
establish that applicants were responsible to
repay the loan amount which was advanced in
the name of the deceased-continuance of the
present criminal proceedings is nothing but an
abuse of process of law.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,754 of 56,746. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39754 for what follows._

1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
13. Thus, in view of the above
discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that impugned complaint filed by
the opposite party no.2 against the
applicant is nothing, but an abuse of the
process of law, therefore this Court finds it
to be a fit case for exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14.

Resultantly,
the
present
application succeeds and the Complaint
Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled Udai Raj vs.
Ram Surat Singh and others, under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC, as well as the
impugned summoning order dated 27th
February, 2016 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, and the
proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered
to be quashed.

15. The application is allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6982 of 2017

Sharad Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Gopesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 107 & 306-no evidence in the case
of alleged abetment of suicide - no active act
shown on the part of the applicants - the loan
was sanctioned in the name of the deceased,
who could not repay the same-the applicants
being brothers could not have been held
responsible for abetment in commission of
suicide by the deceased- no evidence to
establish that applicants were responsible to
repay the loan amount which was advanced in
the name of the deceased-continuance of the
present criminal proceedings is nothing but an
abuse of process of law.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mariano Anto Bruno & anr. Vs The Inspector
of Police, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834: 2022 SCC
Online SC 1387;

2. Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023, Mohit
Singhal & anr. Vs The St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
decided on 01.12.2023;

3. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs St. of M.P. & anr.,
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

4. Application U/s 482 No.24303 of 2016,
Ambesh Mani Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
decided on 01.12.2023

5. Geo Verghese Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 873

6. M. Arjunan Vs St., represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315

7. S.S. Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.,
(2010) 12 SCC 190

8. Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 17
SCC 301

9. Madan Mohan Singh Vs St. of Guj. & anr.,
(2010) 8 SCC 628

10. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs S. Unnikrishnan Nair
& ors., (2015) 9 SCC 639

11. Kanchan Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
decided on 17.09.2021

12. M. Vijayakumar Vs St. of T.N., (2024) 4 SCC
633
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025, Mahendra
Awase Vs The St. of M.P., decided on
17.01.2025

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.5450 of 2016, State Vs.
Sharad Kumar and another, arising out of
Case Crime No.135 of 2016, under Section
306 IPC, Police Station Maheshganj,
District
Pratapgarh
as
well
as
the
cognizance order dated 06.12.2016 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

2. Facts, in brief, are that Shishir
Kumar, elder brother of the applicants,
consumed Sulphas on 27.05.2016 and he
succumbed. Smt. Kanti Srivastava, wife of
Shishir Kumar, informed the police about the
said incident, which is entered vide Report
No.26 of 27.05.2016 at 15.30 hrs. that her
husband committed suicide by consuming
Sulphas and inquest was also prepared on the
same day. Thereafter, post-mortem was
conducted on 28.05.2016. Opposite party
no.2, brother-in-law of the deceased, lodged
an FIR on 02.06.2016 making allegation that
applicants abetted the deceased to commit
suicide for the reason that the loan, which
was advanced by the bank to the deceased,
was to be repaid by the applicants and the
deceased, who are real brothers, but the
applicants refused to repay the loan and also
they did not give the share of the property,
therefore, the deceased Shishir Kumar
committed suicide. The FIR further indicates
that father of the applicants had assured the
deceased that his brothers will also help him
in repaying the loan.

3. Learned counsel for the
applicants has submitted that all the three
sons i.e. applicants and the deceased were
residing separately and deceased Shishir
Kumar had no issue. The deceased had
purchased a Tractor by taking a loan, but
could not repay the amount of loan, that is
why a recovery notice was issued against
him. The deceased was taken to Swaroop
Rani Hospital, Allahabad for treatment by
the applicants themselves, however, deceased
could not be saved. Statement of father of the
applicants was also recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., in which he categorically stated
that it is opposite party no.2, who was
responsible for abetment to suicide because
he wanted that the deceased should adopt his
son, so that he could claim the property of the
deceased. Counsel for the applicants has
further submitted that name of the deceased
was recorded in the revenue record as cotenure holder along with the applicants and
he took the loan by mortgaging his land,
which was recorded in his name. He has also
submitted that there is no act of abetment by
the applicants in commission of crime. It is
further submitted that there is no ingredient of
Section 106 IPC against the applicants as
there is no evidence of any kind of active act
committed by the applicants. Charge sheet
has been filed on the wrong presumption that
applicants abetted the deceased to commit
suicide without there being any evidence.
Learned counsel has further submitted that
vague and bald allegations have been levelled
against the applicants that too without
supporting of any evidence and the applicants
have been charge sheeted on surmises and
conjunctures.

4. In support of his contention,
counsel for the applicants has placed
reliance upon the following cases:-

1. Mariano Anto Bruno
and another Vs. The Inspector of
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
Police, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834:
2022 SCC Online SC 1387;
2.
Criminal
Appeal
No.3578 of 2023, Mohit Singhal
and another Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand and others, decided
on 01.12.2023;
3. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs.
State of M.P. and another, 1995
Supp (3) SCC 438; and
4. Application U/s 482
No.24303 of 2016, Ambesh Mani
Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, decided on 01.12.2023.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA
has submitted that evidence has been
collected by the Investigating Officer, in
which it has been found that applicants
were involved in abetment of suicide and
the deceased had committed suicide under
pressure because he could not repay the
amount of loan. Learned AGA has pointed
out the statement of Smt. Kanti Srivastava,
wife of the deceased, who stated that the
loan was taken by her husband with the
help of her father-in-law and he assured
that the loan amount will be repaid by all
the three brothers i.e. applicants and the
deceased. She further stated that the loan
amount was not repaid by the applicants,
that is why her husband committed suicide.
He has, therefore, submitted that this
application is liable to be rejected.

6. Despite of service of notice, no
one has put in appearance on behalf of
opposite party no.2.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the record.

8. After going through the record, I
find that there is no active act on the part of
the applicants, which could establish that
they were involved in abetting the deceased
to commit suicide. An important fact has
also come out that the deceased was having
his own agricultural property, on which
loan was sanctioned in his name, therefore,
he was responsible to repay the loan
amount. In case he could not repay the loan
amount and under pressure he committed
suicide, then how the applicants are
responsible in any manner. It is not worth
to presume that applicants being brothers,
had to repay the loan amount, which was
advanced to the deceased by the bank. The
evidence on record does not indicate that
applicants abetted the deceased in any
manner to instigate him to commit suicide.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra) has
considered the issue of abetment of suicide
in paragraph-3 of the judgement, which
reads as under:-

"3. At the time of framing
of charge, the trial court thought it
appropriate
to
associate
the
appellant herein as an accused
because of the words he uttered to
the deceased. We think that just on
the basis of that utterance the
Court of Session was in error in
summoning the appellant to face
trial. In the first place it is difficult,
in the facts and circumstances, to
come to even a prima facie view
that what was uttered by the
appellant was enough to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide.
Those words are casual in nature
which are often employed in the
heat
of
the
moment
between
quarrelling people. Nothing serious
is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the
requisite
mens
rea
on
the
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assumption that these words would
be carried out in all events. Besides
the deceased had plenty of time to
weigh the pros and cons of the act
by which he ultimately ended his
life. It cannot be said that the
suicide by the deceased was the
direct result of the words uttered by
the appellant. For these reasons,
the error is apparent requiring
rectification.
The
appeal
is
accordingly allowed. The orders of
the High Court and that of the
Court of Sessions are thus upset.
The appellant need not face the
charge."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mohit Singhal (supra) has held that
instigation on the part of the accused is the
pivotal thing which is to be seen and there
must be instigation in some form on the
part of the accused to cause the deceased to
commit suicide. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
said judgement are quoted herein-below:-

"9. In the facts of the case,
secondly and thirdly in Section 107,
will have no application. Hence,
the
question
is
whether
the
appellants instigated the deceased
to commit suicide. To attract the
first
clause,
there
must
be
instigation in some form on the
part of the accused to cause the
deceased
to
commit
suicide.
Hence, the accused must have
mens rea to instigate the deceased
to commit suicide. The act of
instigation
must
be
of
such
intensity that it is intended to
push the deceased to such a
position under which he or she
has no choice but to commit
suicide. Such instigation must be
in close proximity to the act of
committing suicide.
10. In the present case,
taking the complaint of the third
respondent and the contents of the
suicide note as correct, it is
impossible to conclude that the
appellants instigated the deceased
to commit suicide by demanding
the
payment
of
the
amount
borrowed by the third respondent
from
her
husband
by
using
abusive
language
and
by
assaulting him by a belt for that
purpose.
The
said
incident
allegedly happened more than two
weeks before the date of suicide.
There is no allegation that any act
was done by the appellants in the
close proximity to the date of
suicide. By no stretch of the
imagination, the alleged acts of
the appellants can amount to
instigation to commit suicide. The
deceased has blamed the third
respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits."

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Geo Verghese Vs. State of
Rajasthan and another, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 873, has held that while
suicide in itself is not an offence as a
person committing suicide goes beyond
the reach of law, but an attempt to suicide
is considered to be an offence under
section 309 IPC. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15
and 16 of the said judgement are
extracted herein-below:-

"13. In our country, while
suicide in itself is not an offence as
a person committing suicide goes
beyond the reach of law but an
attempt to suicide is considered to
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593
be an offence under Section 309
IPC. The abetment of suicide by
anybody is also an offence under
Section 306 IPC. It would be
relevant to set out Section 306 of
the IPC which reads as under :-
"306.
Abetment
of
suicide.-If any person commits
suicide,
whoever
abets
the
commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine."
14. Though, the IPC does
not define the word 'Suicide' but
the ordinary dictionary meaning of
suicide is 'self-killing'. The word is
derived from a modern latin word
'suicidium', 'sui' means 'oneself'
and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus,
the word suicide implies an act of
'self-killing'. In other words, act of
death must be committed by the
deceased himself, irrespective of
the means adopted by him in
achieving the object of killing
himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC
makes abetment of suicide a
criminal offence and prescribes
punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary
meaning of the word 'instigate' is
to bring about or initiate, incite
someone to do something. This
Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 873 has defined
the word 'instigate' as under :-

"Instigation is to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act."

12. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs.
State, represented by its Inspector of
Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further dealt with the
ingredients of Section 306 IPC extensively.
The relevant paragraph of the said
judgement is quoted herein-below:-

"The essential ingredients
of the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the
accused, however, insulting the
deceased
by
using
abusive
language
will
not,
by
itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide.
There should be evidence capable
of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless
the
ingredients
of
instigation/abetment
to
commit
suicide
are
satisfied,
accused
cannot be convicted under Section
306 I.P.C."

13. The scope and ambit of Section
107 IPC and its co-relation with Section
306 IPC has been discussed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Cheena
Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another,
(2010) 12 SCC 190. The relevant paragraph
of the said judgement reads as under:-

"Abetment
involves
a
mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in
committing
suicide,
conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature and the ratio of
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the cases decided by the Supreme
Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306
IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that
act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a
position
that
he
committed
suicide."

14. In the case of Ude Singh and
others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17
SCC 301, Hon'ble Supreme Court while
discussing the question that state of mind to
commit suicide is to be seen, which is
mentioned under Section 306 IPC, held as
under:-

"16. In cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act/s of
incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed
that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behavior and
responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide,
the Court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the
act/s
of
incitement
to
the
commission of suicide. In the case
of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels
the person to commit suicide; and
such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of
finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another;
the consideration would be if the
accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had
been hypersensitive and the action
of
accused
is
otherwise
not
ordinarily expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe
to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the
other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course
of conduct creates a situation
which
leads
the
deceased
perceiving no other option except
to commit suicide, the case may fall
within the four-corners of Section
306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the selfesteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the
accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question
of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds
are only of such nature where the
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
595
accused intended nothing more
than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused
kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until
the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be
that of abetment of suicide. Such
being
the
matter
of
delicate
analysis of human behaviour, each
case is required to be examined on
its own facts, while taking note of
all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche
of the accused and the deceased."

15. In the case of Madan Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2010) 8 SCC 628, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also taken the similar view in
paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, which
read as under:-

"10. We are convinced that
there is absolutely nothing in this
suicide note or the FIR which
would even distantly be viewed as
an offence much less under Section
306, IPC. We could not find
anything in the FIR or in the socalled suicide note which could be
suggested as abetment to commit
suicide. In such matters there must
be an allegation that the accused
had instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or secondly, had
engaged with some other person in
a conspiracy and lastly, that the
accused had in any way aided any
act or illegal omission to bring
about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best
efforts
and
microscopic
examination of the suicide note and
the FIR, all that we find is that the
suicide note is a rhetoric document
in the nature of a departmental
complaint. It also suggests some
mental imbalance on the part of the
deceased
which
he
himself
describes as depression. In the socalled suicide note, it cannot be
said that the accused ever intended
that the driver under him should
commit suicide or should end his
life and did anything in that behalf.
Even if it is accepted that the
accused changed the duty of the
driver or that the accused asked
him not to take the keys of the car
and to keep the keys of the car in
the office itself, it does not mean
that the accused intended or knew
that the driver should commit
suicide because of this.
12. In order to bring out an
offence under Section 306, IPC
specific abetment as contemplated
by Section 107, IPC on the part of
the accused with an intention to
bring out the suicide of the
concerned person as a result of that
abetment is required. The intention
of the accused to aid or to instigate
or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for this particular
offence under Section 306, IPC. We
are of the clear opinion that there
is no question of there being any
material for offence under Section
306, IPC either in the FIR or in the
so-called suicide note.
13. It is absurd to even
think that a superior officer like the
appellant would intend to bring
about suicide of his driver and,
therefore, abet the offence. In fact,
there is no nexus between the so
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
called suicide (if at all it is one for
which also there is no material on
record) and any of the alleged acts
on the part of the appellant. There
is no proximity either. In the
prosecution under Section 306,
IPC,
much
more
material
is
required. The Courts have to be
extremely careful as the main
person is not available for cross-
examination
by
the
appellant/accused.
Unless,
therefore,
there
is
specific
allegation and material of definite
nature (not imaginary or inferential
one), it would be hazardous to ask
the appellant/accused to face the
trial. A criminal trial is not exactly
a pleasant experience. The person
like the appellant in present case
who is serving in a responsible post
would
certainly
suffer
great
prejudice,
were
he
to
face
prosecution on absurd allegations
of irrelevant nature. In the similar
circumstances, as reported in Netai
Dutta v. State of W.B. 2005 (2) SCC
659, this Court had quashed the
proceedings initiated against the
accused.
16. Insofar as Section
294(b) IPC is concerned, we could
not find a single word in the FIR or
even in the so-called suicide note.
Insofar as Section 306 IPC is
concerned, even at the cost of
repetition, we may say that merely
because a person had a grudge
against his superior officer and
committed suicide on account of
that grudge, even honestly feeling
that he was wronged, it would still
not be a proper allegation for
basing the charge under Section
306 IPC. It will still fall short of a
proper allegation. It would have to
be objectively seen whether the
allegations made could reasonably
be viewed as proper allegations
against the appellant/accused to
the effect that he had intended or
engineered the suicide of the
concerned person by his acts,
words etc. When we put the present
FIR on this test, it falls short.
17. We have already
explained that the baseless and
irrelevant allegations could not be
used as a basis for prosecution for
a serious offence under Section 306
IPC. Similarly, we have already
considered Section 294(b) IPC
also. We have not been able to find
anything.
Under
such
circumstances, where the FIR itself
does not have any material or is
not capable of being viewed as
having material for offence under
Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, as
per the law laid down by this Court
in State of Haryana and Ors. v.
Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Suppl. 1
SCC 335, it would be only proper
to quash the FIR and the further
proceedings."

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the issue of abetment to suicide
in the case of State of Kerala and others
Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others,
(2015) 9 SCC 639. Relevant paragraphs of
the said judgement read as under:-

"9.
To
appreciate
the
rivalised
submissions
in
the
obtaining factual matrix, it is
necessary
to
understand
the
concept of abatement as enshrined
in Section 107 Indian Penal Code.
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
597
The
said
provision
reads
as
follows:
07. A person abets the
doing of a thing, who-
First-Instigates any person
to do that thing; or
Secondly-Engages with one
or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly-Intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-A person
who, by willful misrepresentation,
or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation
2-Whoever,
either prior to or at the time of
commission
of
an
act,
does
anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof,
is said to aid the doing of that act.
10. The aforesaid provision
was interpreted in Kishori Lal v.
State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 by
a
two-Judge
Bench
and
the
discussion
therein
is
to
the
following effect:
Section 107 Indian Penal
Code defines abetment of a thing.
The offence of abetment is a
separate
and
distinct
offence
provided in Indian Penal Code. A
person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person
to do that thing; or (2) engages
with one or more other persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by
act or illegal omission, the doing of
that
thing.
These
things
are
essential to complete abetment as a
crime.
The
word
"instigate"
literally means to provoke, incite,
urge
on
or
bring
about
by
persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid, as
provided in the three clauses of
Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed
in consequence of abetment and
there is no provision for the
punishment of such abetment, then
the offender is to be punished with
the punishment provided for the
original
offence.
"Abetted"
in
Section 109 means the specific
offence abetted. Therefore, the
offence for the abetment of which a
person
is
charged
with
the
abetment is normally linked with
the proved offence.
11. In Amalendu Pal v.
State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC
707 dealing with expression of
abetment the Court observed:
The expression "abetment"
has been defined Under Section
107 Indian Penal Code which we
have already extracted above. A
person
is
said
to
abet
the
commission of suicide when a
person instigates any person to do
that thing as stated in clause Firstly
or to do anything as stated in
clauses Secondly or Thirdly of
Section 107 Indian Penal Code.
Section 109 Indian Penal Code
provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consequence of abetment then the
offender is to be punished with the
punishment
provided
for
the
original offence. Learned Counsel
for the Respondent State, however,
clearly stated before us that it
would be a case where clause
Thirdly of Section 107 Indian Penal
Code only would be attracted.
According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as
provided for Under Section 107
Indian Penal Code.
12. As we find from the
narration of facts and the material
brought on record in the case at
hand, it is the suicide note which
forms the fulcrum of the allegations
and for proper appreciation of the
same, we have reproduced it
hereinbefore. On a plain reading of
the same, it is difficult to hold that
there has been any abetment by the
Respondents. The note, except
saying
that
the
Respondents
compelled him to do everything and
cheated him and put him in deep
trouble, contains nothing else. The
Respondents were inferior in rank
and it is surprising that such a
thing could happen. That apart, the
allegation is really vague. It also
baffles reason, for the department
had made him the head of the
investigating team and the High
Court had reposed complete faith
in him and granted him the liberty
to move the court, in such a
situation, there was no warrant to
feel cheated and to be put in
trouble by the officers belonging to
the lower rank. That apart, he has
also put the blame on the Chief
Judicial Magistrate by stating that
he had put pressure on him. He has
also made the allegation against
the Advocate.
13. In Netai Dutta (supra),
a two-Judge Bench, while dealing
with the concept of abetment Under
Section 107 Indian Penal Code
and, especially, in the context of
suicide note, had to say this:
In the suicide note, except
referring to the name of the
Appellant at two places, there is no
reference of any act or incidence
whereby the Appellant herein is
alleged to have committed any
wilful
act
or
omission
or
intentionally aided or instigated the
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There
is no case that the Appellant has
played any part or any role in any
conspiracy,
which
ultimately
instigated
or
resulted
in
the
commission of suicide by deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag.
Apart from the suicide note,
there is no allegation made by the
complainant that the Appellant
herein in any way was harassing
his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag.
The case registered against the
Appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the
alleged suicide note do not in any
way make out the offence against
the Appellant. The prosecution
initiated against the Appellant
would
only
result
in
sheer
harassment
to
the
Appellant
without any fruitful result. In our
opinion, the learned Single Judge
seriously erred in holding that the
First Information Report against
the
Appellant
disclosed
the
elements of a cognizable offence.
There was absolutely no ground to
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
599
proceed
against
the Appellant
herein. We find that this is a fit case
where the extraordinary power
Under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
is
to
be
invoked. We quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the
Appellant and accordingly allow
the appeal.
14. In M. Mohan (supra),
while dealing with the abatement,
the Court has observed thus:
Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing
suicide,
conviction
cannot
be
sustained.
The
intention
of
the
Legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are
clear that in order to convict a
person Under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It
also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option
and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into
such
a
position
that
he/she
committed suicide.
15. As far as Praveen
Pradhan (supra), is concerned, Mr.
Rao, has emphatically relied on it
for the purpose that the Court had
declined to quash the F.I.R. as there
was a suicide note. Mr. Rao has
drawn out attention to paragraph
10 of the judgment, wherein the
suicide note has been reproduced.
The Court in the said case has
referred to certain authorities with
regard to Section 107 Indian Penal
Code and opined as under:
"18. In fact, from the above
discussion it is apparent that
instigation has to be gathered from
the circumstances of a particular
case. No straight-jacket formula
can be laid down to find out as to
whether in a particular case there
has been instigation which force
the person to commit suicide. In a
particular case, there may not be
direct
evidence
in
regard
to
instigation which may have direct
nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such
a case, an inference has to be
drawn from the circumstances and
it is to be determined whether
circumstances had been such which
in fact had created the situation
that a person felt totally frustrated
and committed suicide. More so,
while dealing with an application
for quashing of the proceedings, a
court cannot form a firm opinion,
rather a tentative view that would
evoke the presumption referred to
Under
Section
228
Code
of
Criminal Procedure.
19. Thus, the case is
required to be considered in the
light of aforesaid settled legal
propositions. In the instant case,
alleged harassment had not been a
casual feature, rather remained a
matter of persistent harassment. It
is not a case of a driver; or a man
having an illicit relationship with a
married woman, knowing that she
also had another paramour; and
therefore, cannot be compared to
the situation of the deceased in the
instant case, who was a qualified
graduate engineer and still suffered
persistent
harassment
and
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
humiliation and additionally, also
had to endure continuous illegal
demands made by the Appellant,
upon non-fulfillment of which, he
would be mercilessly harassed by
the Appellant for a prolonged
period of time. He had also been
forced to work continuously for a
long durations in the factory, vis-àvis other employees which often
even entered to 16-17 hours at a
stretch. Such harassment, coupled
with the utterance of words to the
effect, that, "had there been any
other person in his place, he would
have certainly committed suicide"
is what makes the present case
distinct from the aforementioned
cases considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case,
we do not think it is a case which
requires any interference by this
Court as regards the impugned
judgment and order of the High
Court.
16. We have quoted in
extenso from the said judgment and
we have no hesitation in stating
that the suicide note therein was
quite different, and the Court did
think it appropriate to quash the
proceedings because of the tenor
and nature of the suicide note.
Thus,
the
said
decision
is
distinguishable regard being had to
the factual score exposited therein.
17. Coming to the case at
hand, as we have stated earlier, the
suicide note really does not state
about any continuous conduct of
harassment and, in any case, the
facts and circumstances are quite
different. In such a situation, we
are disposed to think that the High
Court is justified in quashing the
proceeding, for it is an accepted
position in law that where no prima
facie case is made out against the
accused, then the High Court is
obliged in law to exercise the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the
Code
and
quash
the
proceedings."

17. Similar issue has been dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal
Appeal
No.1022
of
2021,
Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
another, decided on 17.09.2021. Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgement are
quoted herein below:-

"9. Having heard learned
counsel on both sides, we have
perused the impugned order and
other material placed on record.
Except the selfserving statements of
the
complainant
and
other
witnesses stating that deceased was
in love with the appellant, there is
no other material to show that
appellant was maintaining any
relation with the deceased. From
the material placed on record it is
clear that on the date of incident on
04.05.2018 deceased went to the
house
of
the
appellant
and
consumed poison by taking out
from a small bottle which he has
carried in his pocket. Merely
because he consumed poison in
front of the house of the appellant,
that itself will not indicate any
relation of the appellant with the
deceased.
'Abetment'
involves
mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without
positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
601
committing suicide, no one can be
convicted for offence under Section
306, IPC. To proceed against any
person for the offence under
Section 306 IPC it requires an
active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide,
seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide. There is
nothing on record to show that
appellant was maintaining relation
with the deceased and further there
is absolutely no material to allege
that appellant abetted for suicide of
the deceased within the meaning of
Section 306, IPC. Even with regard
to offence alleged under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed
that
except
vague
and
bald
statement that the appellant and
other
family
members
abused
deceased by uttering casteist words
but there is nothing on record to
show
to
attract
any
of
the
ingredients for the alleged offence
also.
This Court in the case of
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16
SCC 605 had an occasion to deal
with the aspect of abetment. In the
said case this Court has opined that
there should be an intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the accused.
Besides,
the
judgment
also
observed
that
each
person's
suicidability pattern is different
from the other and each person has
his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. In the said judgment it is
held that it is impossible to lay
down any straightjacket formula
dealing with the cases of suicide
and each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and
circumstances. In the case of
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of
West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 in
order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306, IPC this
Court has held as under :
"12. Thus, this Court has
consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of
an offence under Section 306 IPC,
the
court
must
scrupulously
examine
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before
it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with
no other alternative but to put an
end to her life. It is also to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of
the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306
IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide
and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active
role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC."
In the judgment in the case
of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC
190 this Court reiterated the
ingredients of offence of Section
306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the
judgment reads as under :
"25. Abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in
committing
suicide,
conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide."

In the judgment in the case
of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v.