SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J
Kailash Katyal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-4450-2016 | CRR-1743-2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ,
For the Respondents: ,

An offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide requires evidence of clear mens rea, active instigation, or intentional aid; mere commercial failure or harassment does not suffice to establish a prima facie case of inciting a person to commit suicide.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients to constitute offence - Prosecution must establish clear mens rea on part of accused and direct or indirect acts of incitement - Mere harassment without positive action proximate to time of occurrence not sufficient - Held, failure to arrange loan or professional dispute does not per se amount to abetment of suicide under Section 107 IPC.

Facts of the case:
Deceased Naveen Arora committed suicide, naming several individuals in his suicide note, including the petitioner Kailash Katyal, alleging they failed to arrange a loan despite receiving advance payments. The trial court summoned the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C. while refusing to summon others. The petitioner challenged his summoning, while the complainant contended all named persons should have been summoned.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner acted merely as an attesting witness to a Memorandum of Understanding. There was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as defined under Section 107 of IPC. The suicide note contents indicated a commercial grievance rather than an act driving the victim to suicide. Consequently, the summoning order was set aside.

Issues: Whether the non-clearance of a loan and associated harassment constitute sufficient grounds to summon the petitioner for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: To constitute abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish a clear nexus between the acts of the accused and the suicide, supported by direct or indirect incitement and specific mens rea. Passive failure or commercial disputes do not fulfill these requirements.

Result: The revision petition filed by the accused was allowed, and the impugned summoning order was set aside; the revision filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background of criminal revision against summoning orders for additional accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments concerning sufficiency of evidence for summoning accused in abetment cases. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. interpretation of 'instigation' and 'abetment' under sections 107 and 306 of ipc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. application of legal principles to facts establishing no prima facie case of abetment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final order of the court deciding the revision petitions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of above noted two petitions, as the same have emanated out of the same occurrence.

2. The criminal revision No.CRR-4450-2016 has been instituted by petitioner-Kailash Katyal against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution, vide which he has been summoned to face the trial as an accused along with main accused namely Anil Khanna.

3. The criminal revision No.CRR-1743-2017 has been instituted by the complainant namely Sachin Arora against the same impugned order dated 15.09.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, on an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. vide which the application moved by the prosecution for summoning remaining accused namely Sartaj, Yuvraj and Suresh Raheja has been rejected.

4. The present case was registered vide FIR No.285 dated 07.08.2015 under Section 306 of the IPC at Police Station 40, Gurgaon, on the basis of statement given to the police by Sachin Arora, son of Naveen Arora, with the allegations that he runs an office by the name of ‘Ample Space’ at Gurgaon. His father Sh. Naveen Arora (since deceased) aged 59 years used to work as a property dealer, who was quite upset for the last three days. When he inquired about the reason, his father told him that he had got paid Rs.25,00,000/- to Mahender Singh, Anil Khanna, Katyal, Yuvraj and Sartaj for obtaining loan. In the same manner, in order to arrange loan for one Rahul Garg, he got paid money to Mr. S.K. Pachowry and Bagga. Neither the loan has been got arranged by Anil Khanna, Katyal, Yuvraj, Sartaj, S.K. Pachowry and Bagga nor they are returning the money and rather they are harassing him. Mr. Raheja is neither giving flats which have been booked nor he is cancelling the flats. He further alleged that today on 06.08.2015, his father told him that he will be going to Panipat. At about 11.00 AM, he himself left for his office. At about 06.15 PM, he received a phone call from his wife Milan Arora, who told him that his father has committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling fan with the help of a rope and on receiving this information, he reached home and found one Will, suicide note and a list near his father, which have been handed over to the police. He alleged that his father has committed suicide on account of harassment caused by Anil Khanna, Katyal (Kailash Katyal-petitioner), Yuvraj, Sartaj, S.K. Pachowry, Bagga and Raheja and he sought legal action against them. Thereafter, the matter was investigated. The suicide note was taken into possession. During investigation, it was found that one Memorandum of Understanding (for short “MoU”) dated 10.10.2014 was executed between Anil Khanna and one Mahender Singh, Director of M/s Starex Holding Pvt. Ltd. for arranging a loan of Rs.25 crores. The said loan was to be got arranged by said Anil Khanna being a lender facilitator, which was to be obtained from Pansari Consultancy and a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as advance to said Anil Khanna. Petitioner-Kailash Katyal was an attesting witness on the said MoU along with deceased-Naveen Arora. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only against accused Anil Khanna while remaining persons namely Kailash Katyal, Yuvraj, Sartaj and Suresh Raheja were found

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top