IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRR-318-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 Anuradha Kalsi and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Aditya Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 02.01.2026 passed in Case No. SC/89/2024 titled as State of Haryana vs. Anuradha Kalsi and another by the Court of Dr. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the application for discharge filed by the petitioners under Section 226 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 434 dated 17.08.2023 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as reflected from the FIR is that the complainant Gaurav alleged that his brother Atul, who was working in a bank and was married to petitioner No.1 Anuradha Kalsi, used to remain disturbed due to frequent matrimonial disputes between him and his wife. It was further alleged that there were continuous quarrels between the couple on account of financial issues and certain monetary transactions involving the family of petitioner No.1, including repayment of a loan allegedly taken by petitioner No.2 Jagmindra Kalsi. According to the complainant, the deceased was also subjected to pressure and threats in relation to these financial matters, as a result of which he remained mentally upset. It has further been alleged that due to the said circumstances and continuous harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. A suicide note allegedly written by the deceased was also recovered from his pocket, wherein he purportedly mentioned his wife Anuradha Kalsi and her father Jagmindra Kalsi as the reasons for taking the extreme step.

3. Thereafter, an application for discharge was moved by the present petitioners/accused persons before the trial Court and a reply to the said application was also filed on behalf of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, dismissed the application for discharge. The learned trial Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is required to be seen and detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible. It was further observed that both the accused persons have been specifically named in the suicide note and the material collected during investigation, including the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., attributes a specific role to them. On that basis, the learned Court held that a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC is made out and accordingly charges were framed against the accused persons.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said order.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation only disclose matrimonial discord and financial disputes between the husband and wife, which by themselves do not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. It has further been argued that there was no direct act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the petitioners so as to attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel has also contended that petitioner No.1 had already been residing separately from the deceased for some time