Uttarakhand High Court
Pallavi And Others -Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 818 of 2017
25th July, 2025
Pallavi and Others -Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others -Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel alongwith Mr. Rafat Munir Ali,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.N. Maulaki, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by
the applicants challenging the charge-sheet dated 25.11.2016,
summoning/cognizance order dated 10.01.2017 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in
Criminal Case No. 192 of 2017 and the entire proceedings
arising out from it.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and
perused the records.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2014, the
applicant no. 1 – Smt. Pallavi Jha was married to deceased
Aditya Raj at Bhagalpur, Bihar. After the marriage, both
husband and wife lived happily at Jamshedpur for some time;
that on 21.04.2015, deceased Aditya Raj joined his services
2
with a private company at Pantnagar and started living there
within the compound of the company at the company’s quarter
alongwith his wife; that the official work of the deceased was of
stressful nature due to which he used to live under stress;
that on 16.05.2015, the deceased Aditya Raj had some
telephonic conversation with his boss Anupam Mishra from
Bangalore. After returning home, he fought with applicant no.
1 and assaulted her in anger, after which he locked himself
inside the room and committed suicide. As soon as the
applicant no. 3 came to know about the incident, he rushed to
Pantnagar and after attending the last rituals, took applicant
no. 1 to her parental place at Bhagalpur, Bihar. Thereafter, an
FIR was registered against the applicants on 18.05.2016 by
respondent no. 3 (sister of the deceased) at Police Station –
Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, which has been
registered as Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections
306/34 of IPC, alleging therein that applicants tortured her
brother Aditya Raj, who committed suicide on 16.05.2016 at
his official quarter at Pant Nagar. After investigation, charge-
sheet under Section 306/34 IPC was filed. Thereafter, against
the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.01.2017, the
applicants were summoned to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved,
they preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application.
3
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicant no. 2 is settled in Bhagalpur, Bihar and applicant
no. 3 is settled in Mumbai and have never interfered in the
family matters of applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the
applicants further submits that applicants cannot be charged
under Section 306/34 IPC as there was no live link or nexus
between the suicidal act of the deceased and any action of the
applicants; that the applicants never instigated/abated the
deceased for commission of suicide; that there cannot be any
presumption of abatement against the applicants as none of
the applicants had subject the deceased to any cruelty and,
that the investigation has not brought out any omission or
commission of the applicants, which led to the deceased to
take any extreme step of committing suicide.
5. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance in the case of Ayyub and Others
Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2025) 3 SCC 334. Paragraph
20 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order
to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result
of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of
the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC (see Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat,
Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim
with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to commit suicide (see Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. and M.
Mohan v. State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh).”
4
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further placed
reliance in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P.,
(2025) 4 SCC 801. Paragraphs 12 to 19 of the aforesaid
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“12. As is clear from the plain language of the sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing
who Firstly — 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State
of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] , the appellant
remarked to the deceased that “go and die” and the deceased thereafter,
committed suicide. This Court held that : (SCC p. 439, para 3)“3. … 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 assumption that these words would be carried out in all events.”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , this Court held that in order to bring out an
offence under Section 306IPC specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring
about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to
instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.,
(2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , this Court held as under :
(SCC p. 712, para 12)
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, 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 306IPC is
not sustainable.”
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there
must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the
5
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 charged with the said offence must be proved and established by
the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306IPC.
17.M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 1] followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088]
, wherein it was held as under : (M. Mohan case [M. Mohan v. State,
(2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p. 637, para 41)
“41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined
different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under :
(SCC p. 629)
’20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is
not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite
the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one
is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.’In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the
appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the
appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
18. Thereafter, this Court in M. Mohan [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC
626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] held : (SCC p. 638, para 45)“45. 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 306IPC
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.”
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course
of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held
that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed
reliance in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
(2017) 1 SCC 433. Paragraph 21 and paragraphs 27 to 30 of
the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:-
6
“21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of
the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live
link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative
factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the
abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement
of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative.
Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate
against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions
rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall
short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive
mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and
complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices
of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement
for suicide.”
27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated
by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , and the relevant
excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder : (SCC p. 134, paras 12-13)
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve
that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More
active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is
required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under
Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the
victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to
the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier
pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1
SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] that courts have to be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to
whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had
induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the
caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive
to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite
common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to
such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty.
The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act
leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had
been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan.
30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat [Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , this Court, with reference to Section 113-A of
the Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law
amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the
7social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or
forced to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding
dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions
permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly
lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on
being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was
emphasised.”
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that on
the basis of complete case diary submitted by the Investigating
Officer, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie
case against all the applicants and after perusing the entire
material evidence on record, has rightly passed the
summoning order dated 10.01.2017. Thus, there is no
illegality in the summoning order passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions
and perused the material placed on record.
10. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for
consideration are 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.
107. Abetment of a thing–A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
Firstly.– 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; orThirdly.– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
8or by wilful 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 the 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.”
11. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an
act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the
said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge
under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved
that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the
deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such
contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions
outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
12. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is
important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the
victim in such a position that he/she would have no other
option but to commit suicide.
13. After going through the record and hearing the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, there is
9
no iota of evidence that the applicants were involved either
actively and passively in instigating or abetting the brother of
the complainant i.e. deceased Aditya Raj to commit suicide.
The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
306/34 IPC have remained unproved and thus the applicants
deserve to be acquitted of the charges for the offence
punishable under Section 306/34 IPC.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 192 of 2017, ‘State Vs. Pallavi and Others,
U/s 306, 34 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the
applicants.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
25.07.2025
Ujjwal