[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2025
Author: B. R. Gavai
Bench: B. R. Gavai
2025 INSC 990
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024
Abhinav Mohan Delkar
Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondent(s)
J U D G E M E NT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a
reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or
even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and
defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a charge of
abetment, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide, is
a vexed question the Courts are called upon to decide when a
charge is raised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
18601. Despite a wealth of precedents, the police still have not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
come to terms with what constitutes an abetment as envisaged
Date: 2025.08.18
13:16:08 IST
Reason:
1
the ‘IPC’
Page 1 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, now Sections108 & 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232; in pari materia.
On a complaint raised, FIRs are registered, investigation carried
out and for reason of abject ignorance or on tainted instigation
or at times deliberate design, the alleged perpetrator is even
taken into custody without examining the existence of mens rea.
2. A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide on
22.02.2021, leaving behind a suicide note which named
persons, both in the administration and the police, who
according to him, conspired to defame, degrade and demean
him so as to end his political career and bring down his social
standing, thus driving him to suicide; which he proclaimed in
his last note, was his only option. The accused, the respondents
herein; named in the suicide note, filed separate applications to
quash the FIR, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19733, which were allowed by the High Court by a
common order, against which the present appeals have been
filed.
2
the ‘BNS’
3
the ‘Cr.PC’
Page 2 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
3. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant took us through the minutes of the Committee
of Privileges in the Lok Sabha which had been looking into the
complaints raised, on breach of parliamentary privileges, by
the deceased. It is pointed out that the accused were named by
the deceased before the Committee and from the various
statements made, it is discernible that a concerted effort was
underway to diminish his public image and finish off his
political life. The statements of the witnesses; read over to us, it
is argued would clearly indicate that there was an attempt also
of extortion and an attempt of forceful takeover of a college
owned and managed by a Trust, formed by the deceased. A
conspiracy was hatched to tarnish his political image,
especially because he had won as an independent candidate,
without any political affiliation, to the Lok Sabha seven times.
4. Answering the query regarding absence of a live link with
the alleged harassment, it was pointed out that the deceased
was a man of public standing and the continuous humiliation he
suffered at the hands of the administration, which was pursued
unabated, despite his raising it before the Committee of
Page 3 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
Privileges, eventually led to the drastic step. The Division Bench
of the High Court failed to look into the suicide note or the
material on record which surely warrants a trial and definitely
not a quashing as has been done under Section 482, Cr.PC.
Reliance was placed on Dammu Sreenu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh4, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar5, and
Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan6. It was argued on the
strength of these precedents that there could be circumstances
and instances when the death by suicide is not preceded by a
proximate incident. The totality of the circumstances has to be
looked into and it is only in the rarest of rare cases, where there
is absolutely no evidence or the charges are not made out prima
facie that trial can be frustrated by resort to Section 482, Cr. PC.
5. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent State rests contend with the statement of law
coming out from the various precedents, a compilation of which
has been placed before us. It is pointed out that the allegations,
on the face of it, arise from oversensitivity. Shri Mahesh
4
(2009) 14 SCC 249
5
(2000) 10 SCC 337
6
(2018) 5 SCC 678
Page 4 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the
accused, the Administrator, points out that there was no
complaint of extortion before the Parliamentary Committee and
it was for the first time raised in the suicide note. The witnesses
are all associates of the deceased who have merely paid lip
service to the suicide note. It is pointed out that even as per the
FIR, the deceased had written a letter to the Administrator, less
than a month before his death, seeking his help which clearly
indicates that the allegation of conspiracy levelled against the
Administrator is without any basis. The accusation of extortion
is one made for the first time in the suicide note and was never
complained of anywhere including the Privileges Committee.
The learned Counsel appearing for the other respondents too
urged that the judgment of the High Court is unimpeachable
and requires to be upheld.
6. The Division Bench which considered the matter has
listed out the various acts and omissions of the police and the
administration, which constituted the continued harassment
complained of, as has been reproduced in the statement of the
son, which led to the registration of the FIR. According to the
Page 5 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
appellant; the son of the deceased who is also the first
informant, the officers of the administration, under the orders of
the Administrator were targeting the deceased, tarnishing his
image and reputation. Briefly put, the conspiracy was hatched
with the intention of taking over SSR College and further to
prevent the deceased from contesting the next elections. At the
instructions of the Administrator the other accused threatened
and insulted the deceased in public, giving short shrift to his
status as a Parliamentarian and attempted to extort money. By
reason of such continuous torture inflicted, the deceased who
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, was forced to commit suicide.
It was stated in the First Information Statement7 that, on being
made aware of the death of his father, the informant came to
Mumbai, took back the body of the deceased on the same day
to Silvasa and later, on 01.03.2021 when he enquired about the
investigation he was told of the suicide note, which was handed
over along with the minutes of the Lok Sabha Committee of
Privileges, based on which the FIS was recorded on 09.03.2021.
7
for short ‘FIS’
Page 6 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
7. The deceased raised his voice against the Administrator
and the maladministration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in the
Parliament and also in the media, which received a lot of
publicity. This enraged the Administrator at whose instance the
local administration and police deliberately harassed the
deceased and intentionally insulted him in public. The
instances of such public humiliation were stated to be
numerous. The M.P. was not invited or allowed to speak at the
function celebrating the Liberation Day of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli, which fell on 02.08.2020, against which he had lodged a
complaint before the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and its
Committee of Privileges. Another instance of violation of
protocol occurred when the M.P. was not invited to a
programme attended by the Union Minister of State (Home), in
his constituency and spreading a canard of the M.P. having
deliberately kept away from the function. The authorised
representative of the deceased was not given a hearing by the
Deputy Collector who was considering a civil suit, against
which representative an illegal complaint was filed. And lastly a
Page 7 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
reinvestigation attempted of a criminal case by an Inspector at
the behest of the Superintendent of Police.
8. The only private individual arrayed as an accused in the
FIR was accused of circulating defamatory video clips on the
social media platforms. One of the accused, a Talati (Revenue
Official) also lodged a false and baseless complaint against the
deceased in the office of the Administrator. The administrative
officers failed to follow the established etiquette due to an M.P.,
in official and public functions and disrespected the deceased,
to bring disrepute. These actions were alleged to be intended
at preventing the participation of the M.P. in official functions
and on public platforms, declining him a fair hearing and
lowering his public image. A further statement also is seen
recorded detailing the threats levelled on the deceased to
further the process of take-over of SSR College, run by a Trust
formed by the deceased, demand of Rs.25 crores and the arrest
of a close associate of the deceased.
9. We would first look at the precedents placed before us,
which, we have to pertinently observe, turns on the facts of each
case. The decisions relied on by the de facto complainant are
Page 8 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
specifically on the requirement of a proximate incident to
suicide, being not imperative. In Surinder Kumar5 the
deceased was accused of stealing 10 grams of gold and
committed the extreme act after 20 days. An application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the High Court, which
order was set aside by this Court, pointing out that the guilt or
otherwise of the accused would have to be decided on the basis
of the evidence; without any discussion on the question of delay,
which again was only of 20 days. There cannot be any dictum
ferreted out from the said decision but for the broad principle
that ordinarily a case will have to proceed for trial and be
decided on the evidence led and the closure at the initial stage
can only be on the principles laid down regarding invocation of
the extra ordinary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. In Dammu Sreenu4, the deceased, troubled by his wife
carrying on an illicit relationship, sent her for counselling, to her
parental home. The paramour, who was the appellant, enraged
with the act of the deceased went to his house and proclaimed
his intention to continue the relationship and later took the wife
away from her brother’s house. The wife returned to her
Page 9 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
parental house on 06.01.1996 and the husband committed
suicide on the night of 07.01.1996. It was found that there was
proximate instigation and intimidation which led to the suicide,
which acts of the accused 1 and 2 had a direct nexus to the death
of the deceased.
11. Munshiram6 again was a marital dispute with the
husband at the receiving end, who met his end at his own hands.
The wife had initiated multiple legal actions against the
husband which were once compromised and then resurrected.
The husband committed suicide, leaving behind two suicide
notes specifically alleging illicit relationship on the wife, and an
attempt, along with her family, to take over the factory
belonging to the father of the deceased/husband. The High
Court invoked the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings which was reversed by this Court. It was
found on a reading of the FIR, as also the FSL report; which
categorically found similarity in the handwriting on the suicide
note, to the admitted handwriting of the deceased, that the case
was not one which could be quashed at the initial stage and
requires evidence to be led.
Page 10 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
12. Much reliance was placed on Ude Singh and Ors. v. State
of Haryana8 which again was a case in which an 18-year-old
girl hanged herself for reason of the continued harassment and
humiliation meted out by her own relatives, who were at logger
heads with the family of the deceased. Admittedly there were
criminal cases pending between the families, who were related
to each other. The first accused who was in the status of her
uncle had been repeatedly referring to the young girl as his
wife which was actively supported by the brother and even the
sons of the first accused. The public humiliation meted out and
the canard spread by the accused resulted in her engagement
being broken off. There was a proximate incident on the
previous day of the suicide, when the accused together, publicly
taunted the deceased, which resulted in an altercation;
witnessed by PW2 and spoken of by the deceased to her
mother, PW11. It is on the unwavering testimony of the
witnesses regarding the continued harassment and the just
prior incident, which led to the suicide that the conviction
entered was upheld by this Court.
8
(2019) 17 SCC 301
Page 11 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions
would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act
prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in
finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the
person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look
at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh7. Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Chhattisgarh9 which was a case in which the husband
pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she
pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined
that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that
she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph
20:
“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 without9
(2001) 9 SCC 618
Page 12 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.”
[underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis]
14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal
Jaiswal10, wherein it was held so:
“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.”
15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh11 was a case
of elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against
the boy, later acquitted on the girl’s testimony in his favour. The
boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the
criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap
her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze.
A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the
responsibility of her death on the accused. While upholding the
10
(1994) 1 SCC 73
11
(2017) 7 SCC 780
Page 13 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
conviction entered into by the High Court reversing the
acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of
the words ‘abetment’ and ‘instigate’:
“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we
are required to address whether there has been
abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that
mere allegation of harassment without any positive
action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part
of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause
harassment in ordinary course of things will not come
within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or
a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of
abetment. There has to be positive action that creates
a situation for the victim to put an end to life.
44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct created such a
situation as a consequence of which the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide. The
active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put
an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any
material on record which compels the Court to
conclude that the victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
difference in domestic life quite common to the society
to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the
accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the
victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to
her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life
spark.”
Page 14 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised
while also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village
setting, also belonging to the poor strata of society, was
threatened and teased constantly, resulting in her resort to the
extreme step. The accused would have known that his acts
would lead to the drastic consequence.
16. Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal12 also held:
“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.”
17. S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan13 emphasised the
requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide. Looking at Section 306,
it was held so :
“… 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.”12
(2010) 1 SCC 707
13
(2010) 12 SCC 190
Page 15 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
18. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)14 spoke
on the suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which
were complex and multifaceted (sic). It was held that:
“Different individuals in the same situation react and
behave differently because of the personal meaning
they add to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. Each individual’s
suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective
experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect.
Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating
contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to end his
own life, which may either be an attempt for self-
protection or an escapism from intolerable self.”
19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat15 was a case in
which the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed
and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he was still
alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note
in which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having
driven him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide
note, this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the
suicide note or the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed
as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
14
(2009) 16 SCC 605
15
(2010) 8 SCC 628
Page 16 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the
I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors. v. State
of Maharashtra and Anr.16 (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the
following manner:
“14. 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.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a
plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves
a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding
another person to do a particular thing. To bring a
charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of
abetment would require the positive act of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to
commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of
the accused person being apparent from the face of
the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section
cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an
active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the
accused person which left the deceased with no
other option but to commit suicide.”16
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835
Page 17 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of
a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in
aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit
suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions
herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant
harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the
ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has
to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was
the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last
proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the
extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke
the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a
larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of
suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often
depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded,
definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is
the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was
continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed
Page 18 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in
finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea
cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the
victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or
option, but to take his life, because of what another person did
or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant
abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the
intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible
from the conscious acts or words and the attendant
circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an
end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended
by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is
the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide
occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred
from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true
test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The
social status, the community setting, the relationship between
the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case
from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
Page 19 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive
another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of
abetment under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill
yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct,
cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an
offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how
different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many
stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people
crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put
the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible
for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an
intention, would not be the proper application of the penal
provisions under Section 306.
25. In this context, useful reference can be made to Sections
113A & 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing
statutory presumptions in aid of Sections 498A & 304B,
respectively, of the IPC. When a woman dies by suicide within
seven years of her marriage, if it is shown that she was subjected
to cruelty by her husband or his relative, there arises a
Page 20 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
presumption that the husband or such relative abetted the
suicide, in which event the penalty under Section 306 is
attracted. The presumption under Section 113A was statutorily
employed by the Parliament, realizing the menace and in an
attempt to prevent domestic violence unleashed on women in
the patriarchal society, by deterrence. This exercise would not
have been necessary if Section 107 did provide for finding
abetment without conscious instigation constituting mens rea.
This Court held in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana17 that the
provision only enabled the court to presume on the abetment,
having due regard to all other circumstances of the case and
drawing such presumption is purely within the discretion of the
Court.
26. We also notice Section 304B which penalises the death of
a woman, caused by any burns and bodily injuries or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years
of her marriage; if it is shown that the victim was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband soon before her death, in connection with any demand
17
(2014) 12 SCC 595
Page 21 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
for dowry, as ‘a dowry death’, punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than seven years and which
extends to imprisonment for life. In law this is made possible by
the presumption brought about by Section 113B; which all the
same requires a proximate incident, as discernible from the
words employed, in both Sections 113B & 304B, of ‘ … and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman was subjected to…’
cruelty or harassment with a demand for dowry.
27. Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab18 considered the import
of the words “soon before”. It was held that “soon before” is a
relative term depending on the circumstances of each case and
there can be no straitjacket formula prescribed. It normally
implies existence of proximate or live link between the demand
of dowry amounting to cruelty and the death. It cannot be so
remote that it is stale but all the same no narrow meaning can
be assigned to the words to defeat the purpose of the provision.
28. Disputes in marital spaces are not uncommon. Tragically
dowry demands, despite punitive legislation, is the major cause
for domestic violence, unnatural death and suicide within
18
(2012) 13 SCC 627
Page 22 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
marital spaces. Hence, a presumption was drawn on the dowry
death of a woman, within 7 years of marriage, by the legislature,
carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger.
It cannot be said that the said requirement is absent in bringing
home a conviction for abetment to suicide. If it is so held, then
it would follow that when a poor woman commits suicide within
7 years of her marriage, pursuant to a “soon before” incident, it
would be a dowry death. But if the death occurs after 7 years,
then there will be no reason to look for a proximate trigger. The
necessity to find a trigger, proximate to the suicide cannot at all
be wished away.
29. At the outset, on the facts coming out in the present case,
it is to be noticed that the deceased was no ordinary person,
though he had his roots in a marginalised community. There is
no allegation of any public humiliation on the basis of caste or a
casteist slur having been spoken. He rose up in the political
front presumably by his grit and determination, especially
having been elected to the Lok Sabha seven times, loosing only
once in three decades, that too as an independent candidate.
The first of these allegations, which allegedly led to the suicide
Page 23 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
refers to an incident on the 2nd of August 2020, the Liberation
Day of the Union Territory, including the constituency of the
deceased. The deceased was not given proper respect and
regard due to an M.P., was the allegation. This has to be looked
at, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, which indicates
curbs imposed for reason of the Covid pandemic, raging at that
time, the country having opened up after the worldwide
lockdown. Restrictions were imposed on official functions and
public celebrations were toned down, to arrest the spread of the
pandemic. The further allegation is regarding the M.P. having
not been invited for a function in which the Minister of State for
Home, of the Union Government, participated, that took place in
December 2020. The deceased M.P. was a seasoned politician,
and we cannot infer such instances of disrespect alone having
goaded him into suicide, that too after a couple of months.
30. The Parliamentarian stood up to the insult and
approached the Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha, the
minutes of which have been produced and painstakingly read
over to us by the learned Senior Counsel. The deceased was a
person of standing, aware of his rights and privileges and
Page 24 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
conscious of the remedies possible. Insofar as the allegation of
circulation of news items and videos, as alleged against a
private individual, it was pointed out that the deceased had
issued a legal notice alleging defamation.
31. While highlighting the above referred two instances, the
M.P. had also spoken of other instances of harassment by certain
officers, not named, but their designations spoken of before the
Committee of Privileges. In fact, when speaking of the Deputy
Collector as seen from the written complaint and also the
statements made, he is said to have misbehaved not only with
the M.P. but also with other persons in the political arena.
Probably, an officer who oversteps his authority, but it is difficult
to discern any conspiracy by the entire administration at the
instigation of the Administrator.
32. The Parliamentarian also spoke of an investigation in a
crime having been reopened but does not speak on any
specifics about the crime proper or its nature. The policemen-
accused; an Inspector and a Superintendent of Police, have
clearly stated that they were not involved in such reinvestigation
Page 25 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
and had also in their counter affidavit pointed out that the crime
number referred by the M.P. was wrong.
33. It is also pertinent that before the Committee of Privileges,
there is no whisper about the Administrator or the extortion
attempted or even the take over of the trust as alleged. In any
event, the Committee of Privileges had seriously considered
the complaint raised by the M.P. and the Chairman of the
Committee, had on 12.02.2021 informed the M.P. of the
investigation initiated insofar as the conduct of the
administration, as recorded in the minutes. It was also recorded
that a letter has been sent for the safety of the M.P. The dated
minutes, in which the same was recorded, is produced at page
190 of the SLP. The M.P. then travelled to Mumbai, presumably
with his fears assuaged and the insults he complained of
mitigated, by the action proposed by the Committee of
Privileges. After 10 days on 22.02.2021, without any intervening
circumstance or incident, the Parliamentarian committed
suicide. Neither the incident of 02.08.2020 nor the failure of the
administration alleged in December 2020; both of not
respecting the hierarchical protocol for an M.P., can be seen as
Page 26 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
an instigation or causation of suicide or the proximate and prior
trigger.
34. One other allegation raised is of the arrest of an associate
who was authorised to represent the MP in a case before the
Deputy Collector. It has been clarified in the counter affidavit
that the preventive detention of the said person under the
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was
confirmed by the Advisory Board chaired by a retired Chief
Justice of a High Court. The allegation of extortion has never
been raised, either in the complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or
in the statements made before the Privileges Committee.
35. Emphasis was laid by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant, on the suicide note which too was
meticulously read over to us, from the translated copy produced
as Annexure P/12. Before we look into the suicide note, we
cannot but observe that going by the FIS, the suicide note,
presumably was discovered by the police when the body was
detected. The appellant who had gone to Mumbai, on hearing
about his father’s death was not immediately informed of the
suicide note. On that day, when the body was taken back to
Page 27 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
Silvassa for the last rites, there was also no FIR registered on the
basis of the suicide note. Surely an FIR would have been
registered for unnatural death as provided under Section 174 of
the Cr.P.C. If a suicide note had been recovered, with the
discovery of the body or later, then necessarily it has to be
seized and a FIR registered and investigation commenced
under Section 157 which enables the police officer to
commence the investigation after sending a report to the
jurisdictional Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such
offence. Under Section 157 the investigation has to be
commenced on information received under Section 154 or
‘otherwise’ of a cognizable offence.
36. It was later, even according to the FIS; on 01.03.2021, the
suicide note was handed over to the appellant, when enquiries
were made with the police. The appellant registers the FIR, still
later on 09.03.2021. There is nothing produced either by the
appellant or the State to show that the suicide note was
recovered along with the body; which definitely would have
been indicated in the Mahazar recorded at the inquest. There is
also no verification carried out of the handwriting in the suicide
Page 28 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
note, juxtaposed with the admitted handwriting of the
deceased. Above all, the suicide note makes pointed
allegations against named individuals, which was not done
earlier. It is for the first time that the Administrator was
mentioned, with an allegation of extortion and attempt to
forcefully take-over a Trust and the college it runs. The actions
of the officers of the administration, alleged to be a direct result
of the conspiracy hatched by the Administrator to coerce the
petitioner, was never raised any time earlier. We cannot place
any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case of
abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written
complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or the statements made
before the Committee of Privileges.
37. If the executive officers are disrespectful to a
Parliamentarian, the people’s representative is entitled to
demand and get his due status recognised by virtue of the
legislative office he holds and also the electoral support he
retains. As a seasoned politician would do, he raised the issue
before the Committee of Privileges, which initiated necessary
action, in which circumstance, we cannot find the suicide to be
Page 29 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
a direct result of the actions complained of. Tragically a life is
lost, leaving questions unanswered. Despite our anxious
reading and re-reading, the complaints made, the statements
recorded, the suicide note; over which there is a cloud, and the
subsequent conduct of the police regarding the delay in
registering a crime and the casual statements made in the FIR,
persuade us to negate the contention that the allegations
levelled were the direct causation of the death.
38. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also
referred to the various statements made by the son and others
associated with the M.P. It was argued that at least, the
statements should have persuaded the resort to a full-fledged
trial rather than a quashing of the FIR, which quashing, in the
given facts is presumptuous. We are not convinced, since we
cannot incorporate those statements made by others, a clear
hearsay, into the written complaint. The statements made by the
deceased himself, bereft of the various allegations in the
suicide note, do not sketch out a case for abetment of suicide.
As has been held in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal19, the
19
(1992) Supp (1) 335
Page 30 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
allegations in the FIS or the complaint do not constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
39. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High
Court had rightly quashed the proceedings, finding the charge
of abetment to commit suicide to be absent. Much emphasis was
laid on the charge of extortion, which has been first stated in the
suicide note and not disclosed in any of the complaints earlier
made to the Hon’ble Speaker or the Committee of Privileges.
40. True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a
humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme
act of ending his own life, in desperation; but that would not
necessarily mean that the alleged perpetrator had an intention
to lead the victim to eventual death by his own or her own hands.
We find no such instigation on the part of the accused in this
case, or a definitive abetment to suicide, as alleged in the FIR.
There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the
admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the
Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note
was introduced in the case. Before the Committee of Privileges,
no reference was made to the various allegations in the suicide
Page 31 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
note, against the named officers. We have found the suicide
note to be suspect and we are not convinced that there is any
modicum of material in the case to find abetment of suicide. The
High Court was not in error, when it quashed the FIR, when no
case is made out from the FIS.
41. The Criminal Appeals stand dismissed.
42. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….……………………. CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
August 18, 2025.
Page 32 of 32
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
[ad_2]
Source link