The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an FIR and the entire criminal proceedings against a Block Development Officer (BDO), holding that the allegations against her, even if accepted in full, did not disclose the offences invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court observed that merely addressing a Panchayat Secretary as "Tum Tam" or "Tere Mere" could not, by itself, amount to instigation to commit suicide or constitute other offences alleged in the FIR.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Anvesha Ona, who was serving as the Block Development Officer of Dumri. She sought quashing of the FIR registered in Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025, in which offences under Sections 108, 61, 316, 351 and 352 of the BNS had been invoked.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner had allegedly misbehaved with Panchayat Secretary Sukhlal Mahato by addressing him in an informal manner during a meeting. The petitioner argued that, even if every allegation in the FIR was accepted as true, none of the ingredients of the offences were made out. She also relied on Supreme Court precedents dealing with the law on abetment of suicide and the requirement of "instigation."
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary referred to Supreme Court decisions explaining that for an offence of abetment of suicide, there must be a clear act of instigation or encouragement that directly leads to the victim's decision to end life.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed,
"Merely using the words 'Tum Tam' and 'Tere Mere'... cannot be termed as instigation to commit suicide."
It further noted that witnesses examined during the investigation had not supported the allegation that the petitioner had insulted the deceased in the manner alleged.
Examining the remaining offences, the Court found that there was no material suggesting any criminal conspiracy, no allegation of entrustment or dishonest misappropriation to attract criminal breach of trust, no threat constituting criminal intimidation, and no intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace.
The bench observed that even accepting the allegations in their entirety, the essential legal ingredients of the offences under Sections 61, 316, 351 and 352 of the BNS were absent.
Holding that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the High Court quashed the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and also vacated the interim protection that had earlier been granted after disposing of the matter.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anvesha Ona v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 1731 of 2025
Judge: Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Decision Date: 1 July 2026
