The Uttarakhand High Court has held that, in the facts of the present case, the material collected during investigation did not disclose any act of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation by the accused. The Court observed that a mere refusal to marry, without such evidence, does not satisfy the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it discharged the revisionist and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against him.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision was filed by Shardul Negi, challenging an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, which had framed a charge against him under Section 306 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the deceased and the revisionist were in a relationship and intended to marry. It was alleged that the revisionist later refused to marry her, following which she became depressed and died by suicide after allegedly consuming an overdose of Midazolam. The deceased's father lodged the FIR, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC.
Court's Observations
Justice Alok Mahra examined the legal requirements for the offence of abetment of suicide and referred to several Supreme Court decisions explaining that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation by the accused.
The Court observed,
“Mere harassment, emotional distress or refusal to marry, in the absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid or active participation, would not satisfy the statutory requirements of abetment.”
After reviewing the material collected during the investigation, the Court found that the only allegation against the revisionist was that he had declined to marry the deceased. There was no evidence suggesting that he had intentionally provoked, encouraged, or assisted her in taking the extreme step.
The bench further remarked that investigating agencies should exercise greater care before invoking Section 306 IPC and that trial courts should avoid mechanically framing charges where the essential legal ingredients are absent.
The Court observed,
“The provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.”
Decision
Concluding that no prima facie case of abetment of suicide was made out, the High Court held that the charge under Section 306 IPC could not be sustained.
It allowed the criminal revision, set aside the order framing charges dated 14 January 2021, discharged the revisionist from the sessions trial, and quashed the proceedings pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shardul Negi v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2021
Judge: Justice Alok Mahra
Decision Date: 2 July 2026
