1. Suicide of a public representative — Allegations of harassment and conspiracy by administration and police — FIR registered — High Court quashed proceedings under Section 482, Cr.PC. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. R. GAVAI, CJI., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Abhinav Mohan Delkar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024
Decided On : 18-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Chandertanay Choube, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Bhimra, Adv. Mr. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R Dahat, Adv. Ms. Priya Mittal, Adv. Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Chandertanay Choube, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Bhimra, Adv. Mr. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R Dahat, Adv. Ms. Priya Mittal, Adv. Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Abetment of suicide – What drove victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections – Merely because victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 [Sections 108 and 45 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] – Abetment of suicide – Even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be proximate prior act to clearly find that suicide was direct consequence of such continuous harassment, last proximate incident having finally driven subject to extreme act of taking one’s life – What drove victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections – Merely because victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to 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 mind of accused – What constitutes mens rea is intention and purpose of alleged perpetrator as discernible from conscious acts or words and attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end – Real intention of accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test – Social status, community setting, relationship between parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another – However, harsh or severe harassment, unless 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. (Paras 22 and 23)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 [Sections 108 and 45 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 113A & 113B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of BNSS] – Abetment of suicide – Only private individual arrayed as accused in FIR was accused of circulating defamatory video clips on social media platforms – 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 – Insofar as allegation of circulation of news items and videos, as alleged against a private individual, deceased had issued legal notice alleging defamation – Allegation of extortion has never been raised, either in complaint to Speaker or in statements made before Privileges Committee – If executive officers are disrespectful to a Parliamentarian, people’s representative is entitled to demand and get his due status recognised by virtue of legislative office he holds and also electoral support he retains – A person unable to bear pressure or withstand a humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to extreme act of ending his own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily mean that alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead victim to eventual death by his own or her own hands – There arises cloud on suicide note, when looking at admitted statements recorded in proceedings of Committee of Privileges and also manner in which note was introduced in the case – Before Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to various allegations in suicide note, against named officers – FIR rightly quashed by High Court. (Paras 29, 30, 34, 37, 40 and 41)
Facts of the case:
A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22.02.2021, leaving behind a suicide note which named persons, both in administration and 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.
Findings of Court:
We have found 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. High Court was not in error, when it quashed FIR, when no case is made out from the FIR.
Result : Criminal Appeals dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
What is the test to establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306 read with Section 107 (and BNSS equivalents) in the presence of harassment or continuous ill-treatment?
What constitutes proximate instigation or a positive act necessary to convict under Section 306, and how does mens rea factor into such determinations?
What are the court’s conclusions regarding the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs in cases involving alleged defamation or harassment leading to suicide, and under what circumstances should a trial be required?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends continuous harassment and conspiracy drove the deceased to suicide — Respondents argue oversensitivity and absence of proximate instigation or evidence of extortion. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Lack of proximate trigger — Suspect nature of suicide note — Deceased's capacity to handle political friction — Absence of conscious intention to drive the victim to suicide. (Para 1 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Abetment under Section 306, IPC requires a positive act, mens rea, and a proximate trigger to establish a direct causal link to the suicide. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
5. Criminal appeals dismissed — High Court order quashing the FIR upheld. (Para 41 , 42 )
6. What constitutes abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC?
Abetment requires a positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another to commit suicide, involving a clear mens rea. It necessitates an active act, direct or indirect, that puts the victim in a position where they have no other option but to end their life. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 )
7. Is a proximate incident necessary to establish a charge of abetment to suicide?
Yes, there must be a proximate prior act or trigger—the straw that broke the camel's back—to prove the suicide was a direct consequence of harassment. Continuous harassment alone, without a proximate trigger, does not necessarily constitute abetment. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 )
8. How is mens rea determined in cases of abetment to suicide?
Mens rea is determined by the intention and purpose of the perpetrator as discernible from conscious acts or words and attendant circumstances. The test is whether the accused intended, or it can be inferred, that their actions would drive the victim to suicide. (Para 23 , 24 )
9. Does the hypersensitivity of the victim affect the finding of abetment?
If a victim is hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord, or differences common to their society, and such factors would not induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the court should not find the accused guilty of abetment. (Para 14 , 18 )
10. How does the law on abetment to suicide relate to the presumption in dowry deaths?
In dowry deaths under Section 304B IPC, a statutory presumption of abetment arises if cruelty occurred soon before death. This legislative requirement for a proximate trigger underscores that a causal link is essential to establish abetment in suicide cases generally. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
JUDGEMENT
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, 1860 [the ‘IPC’]. Despite a wealth of precedents, the police still have not come to terms with what constitutes an abetment as envisaged under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, now Sections 108 & 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [the ‘BNS’]; 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, 1973 [the ‘Cr.PC’], which were allowed by the High Court by a common order, against which the present appeals have been filed.
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 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 Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 249 State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar, (2000) 10 SCC 337 and Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 5 SCC 678. 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 f
