Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Shardul Negi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2021
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manisha Bhandari, B. S. Kathayat
For the Respondents: Deepak Bisht, Gaurav Nagpal, Ramji Shrivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the prosecution case and the lower court order framing charges under section 306 ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. competing arguments on whether refusal to marry constitutes abetment versus the prima facie standard for framing charges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal requirements for abetment of suicide, including the need for active instigation and mens rea. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. application of abetment law to the facts, noting that refusal to marry without active instigation is insufficient. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. decision to discharge the accused and quash the proceedings. (Para 19) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 14.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2020, “State vs. Shardul Negi”, whereby charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been framed against the revisionist.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased and the revisionist were in a relationship and intended to marry each other. However, after remaining in the relationship for some time, the revisionist allegedly refused to marry the deceased. It is alleged that, on account of the said refusal, the deceased became depressed and ultimately committed suicide by administering an overdose of Midazolam (Mezolam).
3. The First Information Report was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that the revisionist was running a hotel where accommodation had been arranged for hospital staff, including the deceased, who was working as a Staff Nurse. During the course of their acquaintance, the deceased and the revisionist entered into a love relationship. It is alleged that the revisionist later refused to marry the deceased, which allegedly led her to commit suicide.
4. During investigation, statements of the father, mother, brother of the deceased and some other were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they substantially reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. The post-mortem examination was conducted and the viscera was preserved. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC was submitted against the revisionist.
5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, framed charge under Section 306 IPC against the revisionist by the impugned order dated 14.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out. It is contended that the only allegation against the revisionist is that he declined to marry the deceased, and such refusal, by itself, cannot constitute abetment of suicide within the meaning of Sections 306 IPC. It is further submitted that there is no allegation or material suggesting any act of instigation, intentional aid or active participation on the part of the revisionist, which could have compelled the deceased to take the extreme step.
7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and Others ”, (2016) 3 SCC 135, “ Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ”, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 107, “ Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny vs. State of Punjab and Another ”, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2332, “Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal” (2010) 1 SCC 707, “ Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab ”, (2017) 1 SCC 433 and the judgment of this Court in “ Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ”, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 decided on 18.11.2009.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists against the accused. It
