To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be direct instigation with clear mens rea, and the act must be closely proximate to the suicide. Vague allegations are insufficient for conviction.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In these petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in SC.No.303/2022 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hunsur. 2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.120/2025 is arraigned as accused No.3 while the petitioners in Crl.P.No.14131/2024 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and

2 in the impugned proceedings.

3. It is an undisputed fact of the matter that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.120/2025 is none other than the brother-in-law and petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.14131/2024 is none other than the brother of Late Prakash, who is the father of respondent No.2-de facto complainant and petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.14131/2024 is the wife of accused No.1.

4. Respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed the instant complaint on 20.09.2020 inter alia contending that on 19.09.2020, the petitioners-accused persons attempted to trespass to the property of the father of respondent No.2, which he acquired under a partition between himself and his brother and the petitioners having instigated and abused the father of respondent No.2, the said Prakash committed suicide on the very next day. Pursuant to which, respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In pursuance of the same, the respondent-Police filed a chargesheet which is currently pending in SC.No.303/2022. After entering appearance, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.120/2025 who was arraigned as accused No.3 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC. seeking discharge on the ground that he is not guilty of offences alleged against him. The said application having been opposed by respondent No.2, the same culminated in the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court in Crl.P.No.120/2025 challenging the impugned order as well as impugned proceedings against him, so also, the remaining petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have also assailed the impugned proceedings in Crl.P.No.14131/2024.

5. Since common question of law and fact are arise for consideration in both the petitions, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

6. A perusal of the material on record comprising of complaint, chargesheet materials, statement of witnesses and documents etc. would indicate that insofar the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, except the petitioners uttering words 'go and die' to the deceased Prakash-the father of respondent No.2-de facto complainant, there is no other legal or acceptable material that establishes the offence of abetment of suicide. Under the identical circumstances, in the case of Prakash and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and another [SLP (Crl.) No.1073/2023, DD.20.12.2024], the Apex Court held as under:

"1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17^th October 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the present appellants. The Writ Petition had been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24^th December 2020 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar wherein the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had rejected the application preferred by the appellants seeking discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, pending against the appellants before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015.

3. The facts which lead to the present appeal are as under:-

3.1. On 20^th March 2015, the Police Station, Ashvi, District Ahmednagar, received an Accidental Death Report (Khabar) by one Vikas Bhausaheb Sanap