IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that for abetment of suicide, there must be mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, and the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in close proximity that it leaves the deceased with no choice but to commit suicide.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is indicted for abetment of suicide of her husband under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). She seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against her through this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner and her husband were both specialist doctors working at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital in Kochi. Petitioner's husband committed suicide on 11.09.2018 by injecting poison. Marital discord is alleged to be the reason for the husband taking the extreme step.

3. Initially, a crime was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. for unnatural death, and subsequently, the provision of law was altered to section 306 IPC and the petitioner was arrayed as the accused for abetment of suicide. In the final report filed on 15.06.2020, it was alleged that, after their marriage, the wife happened to see certain intimate videos of her husband with his former girlfriend, leading to marital discord between the couple. The bickerings and quarrels had a heavy toll on the emotional balance of the husband, resulting in his suicide after leaving two suicide notes. It is alleged that the accused repeatedly harassed her husband and spoke ill about the family of the deceased, thereby abetting the commission of suicide.

4. Sri. C.C. Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Adv. Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations, even if admitted, would not make out the offence under section 306 IPC and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was contended that the alleged suicide notes recovered do not indicate any act done by the petitioner, falling within the purview of abetment under law. The learned Senior Counsel argued that, merely because one of the parties to a marriage decided to end his life, even if it be on account of quarrel between the couple, the same cannot mulct the spouse with the offence of abetment of suicide.

5. Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Adv. Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the contentions now raised before this Court are matters which require appreciation of evidence and hence the same cannot be interfered with under section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision in Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2022) 2 SCC 129 and submitted that the repeated and continued acts of mental cruelty and torture could amount to abetment. It was also submitted that it is too premature a stage for this Court to interfere.

6. While appreciating the contentions advanced by the respective Senior Counsel, it has to be noted that after the filing of the final report, and while this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was pending, a further investigation was carried out, resulting in a further final report. Though the said further final report has been subsequently produced as an additional exhibit, there is no corresponding challenge raised. Concedely, the further final report has not brought in any change, and the report is practically a verbatim reproduction of the first final report filed in the case. In the decision in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706, it was held that even after filing the charge sheet, the High Court can exercise the inherent powers under section 482 to quash the FIR. In the instant case, petitioner has challenged the FIR as well as the final report. As the further final report has not brought out any additional material, the failure to incorporate a challenge against the further final report need not restrain this Court from considering the claim for quashing the FIR and the final report.

7. The husband of the petitioner committed suicide on 11-09-2018, while the two alleged suicide notes are dated 14.07.2018 and 28.08.2018. The prosecution alleges that the two notes give sufficient ind