Establishing criminal liability under Section 306 IPC requires proof of mens rea and evidence of instigation, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH

Heard Mr. Deo Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the FIR arising out of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 106 of 2020 registered under Section 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and also for quashing of the consequential court proceedings subsequent to submission of Charge-Sheet No. 294 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 in the light of supervision note submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the son of the informant (deceased), was married with petitioner No. 1, Radha Kumari, 5 years ago under Hindu customs and traditions. The wife of the deceased (petitioner no. 1) had left the house of the deceased and was residing in her father's house. On 14.05.2020, the deceased was called by petitioners at their house where hot discussion took place. It is further alleged that during the hot discussion, the petitioners had infuriated and reprimanded the deceased, due to which, the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that no case under Section 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out against the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 being own wife of the deceased, at no point of time, had ever instigated the deceased, nor any case was lodged by the deceased before the suicide note, which was found at the time of preparation of the inquest report. Learned counsel further submitted that the ingredient of Section 107 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE to link the petitioners with the ingredient as contained under Section 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are completely lacking and, as such, the further criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners will be abuse of process of Court.

5. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2024) and in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025; Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11868 of 2023) and submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court has held that from very perusal of the suicide note, no case of abatement is made out. In the present case also, no case of abatement is made out. In furtherance of the above proposition of law, learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 following the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618. Learned counsel relying on the said judgment has drawn attention of this Court that from the very suicide note, it is not suggestive that the petitioners had ever instigated the deceased leading to suicide. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on paragraphs no. 17 and 20 of the observations made in Mahendra Awase (Supra) which are as follows:

"17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-

41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “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