Charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC require clear evidence of instigation, which is absent in this case, leading to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"i Call for entire records pertain to S.C.No.113/2024 pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Bangalore Rural.

ii. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in S.C.No.113/2024 against the petitioners registered by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under section 498(A), 306 of IPC , pending on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Bangalore Rural as abuse of process of law.

iii. Pass appropriate order deems fit to the circumstances of the case on hand and to meet the interest of justice.

2. Though respondent No.2 is served, she has remained unrepresented.

3. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the petitioner is the husband of late Smt.Raziya Sulathana, who is none other than the daughter of respondent No.2. The said Raziya Sulthana is alleged to have committed suicide on 14.01.2024 pursuant to which respondent No.2-defacto complainant filed the instant complaint which is registered in FIR No.37/2024 against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC which is currently pending in SC No.113/2024 before the trial court.

4. In this context, it is necessary to extract the impugned complaint which reads as under:

5. The charge sheet which was filed in pursuance of the said complaint also would reiterate the very same allegations but the statement of witnesses do not indicate that aforesaid deceased Raziya Sulthana committed suicide due to instigation/incitement on the part of the petitioner as required in law in the absence of which, it cannot be said that petitioner is guilty of abetment of suicide as contemplated under Section 306 read with 107 of IPC . In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court.

6. In the case of Ayub Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [2025 INSC 168] it is held as under:

"14. At the outset itself, we notice certain disturbing and peculiar features that obtain in this case. The first appellant who lost his son, lodged the first complaint on 02.11.2022 at 19:15 hrs. By the said time the body was in the mortuary. It transpires from the first information report lodged on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs by the respondent no. 2 that Tanu had committed suicide at around 10:30 am to 11:00 am on 02.11.2022. Regarding the death of Tanu, it was mentioned in the application for quash that the G.D. entry at the behest of the ward boy of the hospital was registered on 02.11.2022 at 01:14 pm. It was also mentioned that an inquest was held in the hospital on the said day. Admittedly, the post-mortem of Tanu was also held at 05:00 pm on 02.11.2022. However, the FIR came to be registered only on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs.

15. It is intriguing that the police authorities, merely by recording the statements of the complainant Vijay, Sunesh W/o Janeshwar and Sushil who have simply parroted the contents of the FIR, proceeded to file the charge- sheet against the appellants. On our repeated queries to the counsel for the State as to whether any investigation to explore any other angle was pursued, we were met only with a stoic silence.

16. We are today left with the one sided version of the complainant R-2. Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide what was the real cause? Was the deceased Tanu distraught with what happened to her friend Ziaul Rahman? Considering the under-currents and the disapproval of the relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other quarter? Did the deceased Tanu resort to the extreme a