The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against seven accused in a suicide case, observing that there was no proximate act of instigation or harassment that could constitute abetment. The Court held that “merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide.”
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4268-4269 of 2024 arising out of a 2018 order of the Madras High Court which had declined to quash the charges against the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the suicide of one Dinesh, who was married to Pushpakalashree (Accused No. 7) on 15 September 2013. According to the prosecution, following matrimonial discord, on 10 November 2013, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 (relatives of the wife) came to Dinesh’s residence, used abusive language, insulted him by calling him impotent, and took his wife back to her parental home. It was further alleged that a threat was issued regarding filing of a dowry case.
On 9 December 2013, Dinesh committed suicide. Initially, a case was registered under Section 174 CrPC on the complaint of Dinesh’s brother. Subsequently, based on torn pages of a diary allegedly maintained by the deceased and said to contain a suicide note, the case was altered to one under Section 306 IPC. A chargesheet was filed and committed to trial as S.C. No. 9 of 2016.
The appellants sought quashing of the chargesheet before the Madras High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Appellants’ Arguments
Counsel for the appellants contended that:
- The alleged suicide note did not mention the date of writing.
- No forensic report confirmed the handwriting as belonging to the deceased.
- The only alleged incident of harassment occurred on 10 November 2013, nearly a month before the suicide.
- There was no act of instigation in temporal proximity to the suicide.
- The language in the note lacked direct inducement or provocation to commit suicide.
They argued that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC were absent and cited precedents including Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, and Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents opposed the appeal, asserting that:
- The suicide note mentioned the accused and narrated a sequence of harassment.
- The case was fit for trial and the High Court rightly refused to quash proceedings at the threshold stage.
Observations by the Supreme Court
The Court carefully analysed the contents of the suicide note and stated:
“Only four people have been held responsible for the suicide whose names have been mentioned… The primary reason appears to be the marriage having not worked out.”
The Court noted that the only incident cited was of 10 November 2013, and there was no further contact between the deceased and the accused till the date of suicide on 9 December 2013:
“There is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the incident of suicide… From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established.”
Relying on precedents including M. Arjunan v. State and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that:
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.”
The Bench also emphasised that in the absence of direct or proximate acts of incitement or harassment, continuation of the criminal trial would amount to an abuse of process.
Final Decision
Holding that the charges did not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the Supreme Court ruled:
“With the very element of abetment conspicuously absent… the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and quashed the Madras High Court order dated 13 April 2018 as well as the proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram.
