Active encouragement or instigation is necessary to establish abetment of suicide under IPC, mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, namely– Vijay K Jha, who is the father of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased (husband of Petitioner No. 1) and Petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 05.06.2002. It is alleged that the deceased committed suicide on 14.09.2002, due to continuous harassment at the hands of Petitioner No. 1 and her family members. He left behind a suicide note, wherein he has named the petitioners and has written that they lodged a false complaint against him in CAW Cell and also threatened to beat him and falsely implicate him and his family members in frivolous cases with the help of Police officers and politicians who are well-acquainted with them.

3. After completion of investigation, a cancellation report was filed by the Investigating Officer, against which a protest petition came to be filed by the complainant claiming that the investigating officers were hand in glove with the accused persons.

4. The learned MM while passing the impugned order observed that the suicide note contains specific allegations of harassment against the petitioners, which led the deceased to take such a drastic step. It was observed that at the stage of taking cognizance, the magistrate only has to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they have falsely been implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant. It is stated that after a few days of marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and the deceased, the in-laws of Petitioner No. 1, including the complainant, started harassing her on the pretext of dowry, to repay certain loans taken by them. It is stated that on 29.07.2002, Petitioner No. 2, who is the elder brother of Petitioner No. 1, lodged a complaint against the family members of the deceased, at CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, however the said matter was compromised between the parties. In this regard, on 01.08.2002, a statement was given by Petitioner No. 1 to CAW Cell. FIR No. 105/2003 dated 14.02.2003 was thereafter registered against the complainant and his family members under Sections 498A/406/509 of the IPC on a complaint given by Petitioner No. 1.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Supriya Juneja submitted that the learned MM erred in relying upon the suicide note, which has already been investigated by the Police over a span of 2 years.

7. She submitted that there was no act of instigation on part of the petitioners as required under Section 306 of the IPC , which could amount to either encouraging or inciting the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore the impugned order is not maintainable in law. In this regard, reliance was placed on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh : (2001) 9 SCC 618 ; Shikha Gupta v. State (GNCT of Delhi): 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6394; Reena v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2020 SCC OnLine Del 630; Atul Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4107]

8. She submitted that the suicide note makes it apparent that the deceased was in severe depression and does not suggest any commission of offence of abetment to suicide. It is submitted that no overt act can be attributed to the petitioners for instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

9. She submitted that even as per the Final Report as well as the ACP/PG Report notes that there is no material on record to show that the deceased was ever summoned by CAW Cell.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the impugned o