HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 818 of 2017

25^th July, 2025 Pallavi and Others -Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel alongwith Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mr. B.N. Maulaki, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicants challenging the charge-sheet dated 25.11.2016, summoning/cognizance order dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 192 of 2017 and the entire proceedings arising out from it.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and perused the records.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.12.2014, the applicant no. 1 – Smt. Pallavi Jha was married to deceased Aditya Raj at Bhagalpur, Bihar. After the marriage, both husband and wife lived happily at Jamshedpur for some time; that on 21.04.2015, deceased Aditya Raj joined his services with a private company at Pantnagar and started living there within the compound of the company at the company’s quarter alongwith his wife; that the official work of the deceased was of stressful nature due to which he used to live under stress; that on 16.05.2015, the deceased Aditya Raj had some telephonic conversation with his boss Anupam Mishra from Bangalore. After returning home, he fought with applicant no. 1 and assaulted her in anger, after which he locked himself inside the room and committed suicide. As soon as the applicant no. 3 came to know about the incident, he rushed to Pantnagar and after attending the last rituals, took applicant no. 1 to her parental place at Bhagalpur, Bihar. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the applicants on 18.05.2016 by respondent no. 3 (sister of the deceased) at Police Station - Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections 306/34 of IPC, alleging therein that applicants tortured her brother Aditya Raj, who committed suicide on 16.05.2016 at his official quarter at Pant Nagar. After investigation, charge- sheet under Section 306/34 IPC was filed. Thereafter, against the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.01.2017, the applicants were summoned to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 2 is settled in Bhagalpur, Bihar and applicant no. 3 is settled in Mumbai and have never interfered in the family matters of applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants cannot be charged under Section 306/34 IPC as there was no live link or nexus between the suicidal act of the deceased and any action of the applicants; that the applicants never instigated/abated the deceased for commission of suicide; that there cannot be any presumption of abatement against the applicants as none of the applicants had subject the deceased to any cruelty and, that the investigation has not brought out any omission or commission of the applicants, which led to the deceased to take any extreme step of committing suicide.

5. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the case of Ayyub and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2025) 3 SCC 334. Paragraph

20 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid o