The court ruled that mere familial disputes do not constitute abetment of suicide; clear evidence of active instigation is required for prosecution under Section 108 of BNSS, 2023.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS , 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

2. Complainant – Yogesh Sharma (father-in-law of the petitioner) got lodged the aforementioned FIR by recording the facts that his son Gaurav Sharma, aged 36 years, performed marriage with Sonika Sharma (petitioner herein) on 28.01.2019. Gaurav Sharma was working as Project Manager in IT Company at NOIDA, and he had left home on 02.07.2024, without informing anyone, in his car bearing registration No. DL-9CU-3253, make Honda City. On 03.07.2024, a call was received by the complainant, informing him that Gaurav Sharma was found near Khanna in the car, after consuming poisonous medicine and is in unconscious condition, but later on, died in Civil Hospital, Khanna. On 04.07.2024, complainant – Yogesh kumar along with petitioner – Sonika Sharma and other relatives reached Khanna, and there statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 194 of BNSS , 2023. Dead body was cremated on 05.07.2024. In the FIR, complainant also got recorded that his son Gaurav Sharma had typed a message from his Mobile No. XXXXXXXXXX and had sent it to his Mobile XXXXXXXXXX. Message was in Hindi language, which is also mentioned in FIR. The same is also reproduced here-under in extracted form:-

am writing this with full consciousness, I am writing that I am upset with Sonika. Her only wish has been from five years that I should shift my mother to some old age home. I am tired of making her understand one thing that mom’s mental state is not right but she is not understanding this thing”...

In the end, it is also mentioned that;

“I want a bit of rest, I am sitting in the car, sending the location”

Complainant handed-over the printed copy of the message along with mobile phone of his son ‘Gaurav Sharma’.

3. Petitioner’s counsel argues that the marriage of the petitioner and deceased ‘Gaurav Sharma’ was performed on 28.01.2019 and from the said wedlock, a child was born on 14.01.2021, and another female child was also born on 20.09.2023, and both the children are staying with their mother i.e. petitioner herein. Further submits that as per the allegations, ‘Gaurav Sharma’ had left the house on 02.07.2024 and the alleged suicide was committed on 03.07.2024. Subsequently, dead body was cremated on 05.07.2024, but by that time, no complaint or any nature was moved by the complainant to the police.

It is for the first time on 29.07.2024, the present case i.e. FIR No.153, dated 29.07.2024, was registered under Section 108 of BNS , 2023, in which, petitioner has been made accused at the instance of her father-in-law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the essential ingredients of Section 107 of BNS , 2023 (equivalent to Section 107 of IPC) are not fulfilled, and therefore, there is no abetment on the part of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the suicidal act committed by her husband, Gaurav Sharma.

He further submits that while there may have been occasional family disputes between the deceased and the petitioner, such quarrels do not imply that if one spouse commi