Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan quashed an FIR registered against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman government advocate who allegedly took her life after he withdrew from their proposed marriage. The Court held that refusal to marry, even if proven, does not by itself constitute “instigation” under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It observed that the materials on record did not indicate any act of provocation or intentional aid that could amount to abetment of suicide. Finding no basis for prosecution under Section 306 IPC, the Bench concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

The matter originated from an FIR lodged against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman government advocate. The complaint alleged that the deceased was in a relationship with the accused and that he had promised to marry her. However, he later withdrew from the proposed marriage, allegedly due to opposition from his family. Following this, the woman was found dead, and a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the man, alleging abetment of suicide.

Also Read: Investigating Agencies Barred From Summoning Advocates For Legal Advice Given To Accused; Privileged Communications Protected Under S.132–134 BSA, In-House Counsel Not Covered By Privilege: Supreme Court

The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case that required trial. The State of Punjab, through its counsel, maintained that the accused’s actions had directly led to the deceased’s suicide and warranted prosecution.

The respondent contended before the Supreme Court that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, did not establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC. It was submitted that the mere refusal to marry could not constitute instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. The respondent further argued that there was no evidence of any act or communication from his side that could be construed as abetment.

The Bench observed that “the short point that falls for our consideration is whether the appellant could be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.” It stated that “by now the position of law insofar as abetment of suicide is concerned is well settled. We are of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are borne out.”

Referring to the legal test under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, the Court recorded: “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.” It added that “the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.”

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Bench stated: “In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide.”

The Court then made a poignant remark: “It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words, whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence.”

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court: Pay Of Junior Employee Cannot Exceed That Of Senior Under 2022 Service Rules; Recovery Of Excess Salary Not Justified When Overpayment Results From Departmental Error

Finally, the Bench recorded: “Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC. We are of the view that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the evidence on record would be nothing short of travesty of justice. Trial would be an empty formality.”

The Bench stated: “In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The First Information Report bearing No. 273 of 2016 dated 07.11.2016 stands quashed. As a result, the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 728 of 2018 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Punjab, are also hereby quashed. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Ms. Deveshi Chand, Advocate; Mr. Agam Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR.

Case Title: Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7309 of 2025)
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan