Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249375

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHATHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB DHARMAJI SHINDE
MOHIT RAJU CHOPRA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
--APPLN/4756/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Mishra
For the Respondents: Jayshri P. Reddy

For abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of direct or indirect instigation in close proximity to the suicide; mere harassment without proximate action does not suffice.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 498-A, 107, 34 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Abetment of suicide - Cruelty by husband or relatives - Quashing of FIR - To sustain charge under Section 306, proof of direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement to commit suicide, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide, is essential - Mere allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence are insufficient - Hypersensitivity of deceased and prior history of suicidal tendencies are relevant factors - Absence of mens rea to abet suicide. (Paras 7-12)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Cruelty - Vague and generalised allegations in matrimonial disputes, if not scrutinised, lead to misuse of legal process - FIR lodged with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance falls within parameters for quashing as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992). (Paras 16-18)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law, FIR and consequent charge-sheet liable to be quashed. (Paras 20-21)

Facts of the case:
The informant (respondent no.2) lodged FIR alleging that his deceased daughter Tanvi was harassed by her husband and in-laws (applicants) for dowry and subjected to mental cruelty, leading her to commit suicide by consuming poison. The applicants sought quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet. The court noted that the deceased had a history of depression and had attempted suicide earlier due to her mother's death and miscarriage. She lived separately from the applicants from September 2022 to February 2024 without any grievance, then at her parental home for about a month before committing suicide. The FIR was filed over a month after the death.

Findings of Court:
There was no direct or indirect act of instigation by the applicants in close proximity to the suicide. The deceased was hypersensitive and had a pre-existing suicidal tendency. The allegations of cruelty under Section 498-A were vague and not proximate to the suicide. The FIR was maliciously instituted to settle personal scores. Consequently, the ingredients of Sections 306 and 498-A were not made out.

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet prima facie constitute offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC? (ii) Whether the criminal proceedings ought to be quashed as an abuse of process of law?

Ratio Decidendi: For abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement that are proximate to the suicide. Mere harassment or cruelty, without such proximate instigation and without mens rea, does not sustain the charge. Hypersensitivity of the deceased and absence of proximity between the alleged acts and the suicide are relevant. Section 498-A should not be used as a tool for vendetta; vague and generalised allegations warrant quashing.

Result: Criminal application allowed. FIR No.0469/2024, consequential charge-sheet, and proceedings in R.C.C. No.416/2024 quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.

##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AUG:38067-DB

1 Cri.APPLN.4756.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4756 OF 2024

1. Mohit Raju Chopra

2. Raju Laxminarayan Chopra

3. Priti Raju Chopra

All R/o.Flat No.03

Mahaveer Darshan Building

Jivdani Complex, V.S.Road, Virar

Tal.Vasai, Dist.Palghar. … APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra

through in charge of

Srirampur City Police Station

Srirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

2. Bharat Arjundas Narang

R/o. Zulelal Panth, Tambe Chawl

Ward No. 1 Srirampur,

Dist.Ahemednagar. … RESPONDENTS

…

Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. Ajay Mishra

AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. Jayshri P. Reddy

…

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 24.12.2025

JUDGMENT ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

##PAGE2##

2 Cri.APPLN.4756.2024.odt

2. By this criminal application filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants are seeking

quashment of the FIR No.0469/2024 registered with Shrirampur City

Police Station dated 19.04.2024 for the offences punishable under

Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short the IPC) and the consequential charge-sheet filed pursuant to the

same.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this Criminal Application are as

follows :

i. The Respondent No.2 – informant lodged the FIR with

Shrirampur Police Station alleging that his deceased daughter,

Tanvi got married with the applicant No.1 on 16.02.2021. He

had performed their marriage gracefully by spending

Rs.25,00,000/-, however, the applicants No.1 to 3 were

harassing deceased Tanvi by taunting her that the marriage

performed by the informant was not as per their pleasure and by

not offering proper respect. It is also alleged that the deceased

Tanvi because of said ill-treatment given by the applicants No.1

to 3 was under tremendous mental stress. Once when she

suffered fracture to her right leg, the applicants No.1 to 3 did not

take proper care nor even bothered to meet her. She always

##PAGE3##

3 Cri.APPLN.4756.2024.odt

used to make a grievance with the informant that no meaning

left in her life to survive anymore and she is experiencing

suicidal thoughts or feelings. However, the informant used to

console her everytime.

ii. It is further alleged that from September 2022 to February 2024,

deceased Tanvi started residing separately with her husband

(applicant no.1) at Malad, Mumbai, in rented flat. She was

doing a private job at Vikroli, Mumbai. It is further alleged that

the applicants No .2 and 3 were not allowing the applicant No.1

to stay with her, as a result of which deceased Tanvi was feeling

lonely and she was kept away from the love and affection of

applicant No.1. It is further alleged that the applicants No.2 and

3 visited at her rented flat in the month of February 2024 and

threatened her on account of demand of money from the

informant.

iii. It is further alleged that deceased Tanvi thereafter came to her

parental home, however, she was under depression and mental

stress because of mental and physical harassment and ill-

treatment meted out by the applicants No.1 to 3. It is further

alleged that she was always thinking of committing suicide. On

11.03.2024 she went missing as a result of which the

Respondent No.2/informant lodged a missing report with the

##PAGE4##

4 Cri.APPLN.4756.2024.odt

police station, however, on 12.03.2024 at 02:00 am she was

found lying unconscious in industrial area at Shrirampur.

Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital where she was declared

as dead. The casue of death is shown as consumption of

poisonous substance. Hence, Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR

against the applicants No.1 to 3.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

applicants No.1 to 3 are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in

the impugned crime. It is further contended that they have neither

subjected the deceased to harassment nor there was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249375

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHATHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB DHARMAJI SHINDEMOHIT RAJU CHOPRA AND OTHERS – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent--APPLN/4756/2024

For abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of direct or indirect instigation in close proximity to the suicide; mere harassment without proximate action does not suffice.

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHATHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB DHARMAJI SHINDE
MOHIT RAJU CHOPRA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
--APPLN/4756/2024