The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed an FIR alleging abetment of suicide against two applicants, observing that merely mentioning someone's name in a suicide note does not automatically establish criminal liability. Justice Himanshu Joshi held that the prosecution must disclose specific acts of instigation or intentional assistance connected to the suicide.
Background
The applicants approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Amanganj Police Station in Panna district under Section 107 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to the prosecution, a 14-year-old boy was brought to a hospital in a deceased condition on August 9, 2025. During the subsequent inquiry, a paper described as a suicide note was allegedly recovered from his pocket. Statements from his parents and other relatives were recorded, following which the police registered the FIR against the applicants, who were described as the boy's grandfather and maternal uncle.
The applicants argued that the allegations did not identify any specific act through which they had instigated or intentionally aided the suicide. The State opposed the petition, contending that the suicide note and statements of family members provided sufficient material for the proceedings to continue.
Justice Joshi examined the legal requirements for establishing abetment of suicide and referred to Supreme Court decisions, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, M. Mohan v. State, and Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court emphasised that the deceased's minority did not remove the requirement of establishing the essential ingredients of abetment. It observed:
"The fact that the deceased was a minor, by itself, cannot dispense with the requirement of establishing a legally cognizable act attributable to the accused."
The Court found that the material placed before it did not identify a specific act by either applicant that could be connected to the suicide. It further observed that general allegations of harassment, without details about the nature, timing and circumstances of the alleged conduct, were insufficient in the circumstances of the case.
The judgment also stated:
"Naming a person, without particulars of instigation, intentional aid or a proximate act having nexus with the suicide, cannot automatically result in criminal liability."
The Court clarified that it was not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the evidence at this stage. However, criminal proceedings could not continue when the allegations, even if accepted at face value, failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offence.
Allowing the application, the High Court held that continuing the proceedings in the absence of material establishing the essential ingredients of abetment would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR Crime No. 468/2025, registered at Amanganj Police Station, Panna district, under Sections 107 read with 3(5) of the BNS, along with all consequential proceedings insofar as they concerned the applicants.
