The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal proceeding against a woman and her father who were accused of abetting the suicide of her husband. The Court observed that marital discord and remarks regarding a husband’s “manhood” do not reach the threshold of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the absence of a “live link” or positive act intended to instigate the suicide.
Legal Issue
The primary legal issue was whether the petitioners’ actions—including the wife leaving the matrimonial home and allegedly making derogatory remarks—constituted “abetment” under Section 306 of the IPC. Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee allowed the revisional application (CRR 4048 of 2024), quashing the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Barasat, stating that the allegations were too remote and indirect to sustain the charges.
Background of the Case
The deceased, Arijit Samaddar, married Petitioner No. 1 (Shreya Basak) on December 1, 2021. Shortly after the marriage, the wife discovered her husband had epidermoid cysts on his private parts, which he allegedly did not disclose. Due to his refusal to seek treatment and subsequent indifference, she left the matrimonial home in February 2022.
On July 2, 2022, she returned briefly to collect her belongings. On September 19, 2022—more than two months later—Arijit committed suicide. A suicide note was found naming the wife and her relatives as responsible. Consequently, the husband’s father (Opposite Party No. 2) lodged an FIR alleging mental torture and the circulation of private photographs of the victim’s medical condition.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: Counsel argued that there was no “live link” between the wife leaving in February (or her visit in July) and the suicide in September. They contended that even if the suicide note were taken as true, it did not disclose any positive act of instigation. They asserted the case was malicious and aimed at harassing the petitioners.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 (The Father): Counsel alleged that the petitioners caused “immense mental torture” and put the victim in an “embarrassing condition” by making photos of his condition viral. They claimed the victim was insulted and threatened as late as September 10, 2022, though the Court noted a lack of material to support this specific threat.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the definition of “abetment” under Section 107 of the IPC, which requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.
On Instigation and Suicide Notes: The Court noted that merely naming individuals in a suicide note is insufficient.
“In the alleged suicide note, except referring to the name of the petitioners, there appears to be no reference of any act or incidents whereby the petitioners herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the victim in committing the act of suicide.”
On Hypersensitivity: Citing State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994), the Court observed that if a victim is “hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life,” the conscience of the court should not be satisfied to find the accused guilty.
On Remarks Regarding Manhood: Addressing the allegation that the wife insulted the deceased’s virility, the Court held:
“Even if the petitioner/wife expressed her disapproval towards restitution of marital relationship with deceased and had allegedly made any remark, such as questioning the manhood of the deceased, it does not gain the status of abetment.”
The Court emphasized that for an offence under Section 306, there must be a clear mens rea (guilty mind) and an active act intended to push the deceased to the edge. It noted that the two-and-a-half-month gap between the last contact and the suicide broke the proximity required for legal culpability.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be an “abuse of the process of the court.”
“I find that the acts of the petitioners, if any, are too remote and indirect to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC. This is also because there is no allegation… that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide.”
The Court also found no ingredients for the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding (GR Case No. 3892 of 2022) was quashed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Case No.: CRR 4048 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
- Date: 11.05.2026
