Direct incitement or encouragement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned final report in P.R.C.No.6 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District, filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The first petitioner is the wife of the first accused, who is not before this Court. The second petitioner is the sister of the first accused, and the third petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner.

3. The gist of the allegations in the final report is that the defacto complainant is a relative of one Sornamari [hereinafter referred to as ‘the first victim’]; that the first victim had an extra-marital affair with the first accused; that the first accused, on the promise of marrying her, had physical relationship with the first victim and thereafter went to her house and again promised to marry her; that an engagement was also held between them; that thereafter, the first accused started avoiding the first victim; that though the first accused and his relatives had initially agreed for the marriage, they later refused to get the first accused married to the first victim; that the first victim had spoken to the first accused over phone and expressed that her family would be humiliated if the marriage did not take place, to which the first accused allegedly told the first victim, her mother, and her sister [hereinafter referred to as ‘the other victims’] to consume poison and die; that during the continuation of the said phone conversation, the petitioners, who were with the first accused, also spoke ill of the first victim and instigated the first victim and the other victims to commit suicide; that unable to bear the humiliation, the first victim, who wrote a suicide note, and the other victims committed suicide by consuming poison; and that, since the first accused and the petitioners had abetted the act of suicide, they are liable for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless there is evidence to show that the petitioners had instigated the commission of suicide by the victims, mere words of abuse or words such as 'go and die' are not sufficient to prosecute the petitioners for the offence of abetment of suicide; that, in any case, the alleged phone call is said to have been made on 03.01.2018, whereas the suicide is said to have been committed on 10.01.2018; that the phone calls said to have been made by the petitioners cannot be said to be the proximate cause for the suicide; that the petitioners have nothing to do with extra-marital relationship between the first accused and the first victim; and that, in fact, the first petitioner, who is the wife of the first accused, is herself a victim of the said relationship and cannot be prosecuted merely because there is a vague reference to her in the suicide note.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent police, per contra, submitted that the suicide note of the first victim clearly states that the petitioners as well as the first accused were responsible for the death of the first victim, her sister, and her mother, and therefore, the point raised by the petitioners that they had not instigated the commission of suicide by the victims/three persons cannot be adjudicated in the quash petition, as it involves disputed questions of fact, and hence, prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

6. Though notice sent to the second respondent/defacto