ABHINAV MOHAN DELKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                  [2025] 8 S.C.R. 966 : 2025 INSC 990

                       Abhinav Mohan Delkar
                                  v.
                   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
                (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2177-2185 of 2024)
                                18 August 2025
           [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or
       rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous
       acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in
       this case, would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at
       the receiving end commits suicide.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
       2023 – s.108 and s.45 – A seven-time Member of Parliament
       committed suicide on 22.02.2021, leaving behind a suicide
       note which named persons, both in the administration and the
       police, who according to him, conspired to defame, degrade
       and demean him so as to end his political career and bring
       down his social standing, thus driving him to suicide – FIR
       registered – Accused-respondents filed separate applications
       u/s. 482 CrPC to quash FIR, which was allowed by the High
       Court – Correctness:
       Held: The deceased was no ordinary person, though he had his
       roots in a marginalised community – There is no allegation of any
       public humiliation on the basis of caste or a casteist slur having
       been spoken – The first of these allegations, refers to an incident on
       the 02.08.2020 – The deceased was not given proper respect and
       regard due to an M.P., was the allegation – As far as this allegation
       is concerned, restrictions were imposed on official functions and
       public celebrations were toned down,to arrest the spread of the
       Covid pandemic – There is another allegation regarding M.P.
       having not being invited for a function in December 2020 – The
       deceased M.P. was a seasoned politician, and one cannot infer
       such instances of disrespect alone having goaded him into suicide,
       that too after a couple of months – The Parliamentarian stood up to
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              967

       Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


     the insult and approached the Committee of Privileges in the Lok
     Sabha – The deceased was a person of standing, aware of his rights
     and privileges and conscious of the remedies possible – Further,
     deceased had also issued a legal notice alleging defamation – M.P.
     had also spoken of other instances of harassment by certain officers,
     not named, but their designations spoken of before the Committee
     of Privileges – It is also pertinent that before the Committee of
     Privileges, there is no whisper about the Administrator or the
     extortion attempted or even the take over of the trust as alleged – In
     any event, the Committee of Privileges had seriously considered the
     complaint raised by the M.P. and the Chairman of the Committee,
     had on 12.02.2021 informed the M.P. of the investigation initiated
     insofar as the conduct of the administration, as recorded in the
     minutes – It was also recorded that a letter has been sent for
     the safety of the M.P. – After 10 days on 22.02.2021,without any
     intervening circumstance or incident, the Parliamentarian committed
     suicide – Neither the incident of 02.08.2020 nor the failure of the
     administration alleged in December 2020; both of not respecting
     the hierarchical protocol for an M.P., can be seen as an instigation
     or causation of suicide or the proximate and prior trigger – Also,
     it is presumed that suicide note was discovered by the police
     when the body was detected – However, when body was taken
     for last rites, no FIR was registered on the basis of the suicide
     note – There is nothing produced either by the appellant or the
     State to show that the suicide note was recovered along with the
     body – There is also no verification carried out of the handwriting
     in the suicide note, juxtaposed with the admitted handwriting of the
     deceased – Above all, the suicide note makes pointed allegations
     against named individuals, which was not done earlier – This Court
     cannot place any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret
     out a case of abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed
     in the written complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or the statements
     made before the Committee of Privileges – Thus, the Division
     Bench of the High Court had rightly quashed the proceedings,
     finding the charge of abetment to commit suicide to be absent.
     [Paras 29-31, 33, 35, 36, 39]

     Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
     2023 – s.108 and s.45 – Ingredients of s.306 r/w. s.107 –
     Proximate prior act – Direct consequence of such continuous
     harassment – Last proximate incident – Mens rea:
968                                                              [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Held: Even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued
       over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of s.306 r/w. s.107,
       still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the
       suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment,
       the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the
       extreme act of taking one’s life – Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke
       the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned
       a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of
       suicide – What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends
       on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively
       and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find
       mens rea – What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose
       of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts
       or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability
       could lead to such an end – The real intention of the accused and
       whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the
       victim to suicide, is the sure test. [Paras 22, 23]

                                Case Law Cited
       Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019)
       17 SCC 301; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [1993] Supp.
       2 SCR 461 : (1994) 1 SCC 73; Amalendu Pal v. State of West
       Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707; S.S.Chheena v.
       Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190;
       Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2009] 13 SCR
       230 : (2009) 16 SCC 605; Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
       and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 – relied on.
       Dammu Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2009] 9 SCR 858 :
       (2009) 14 SCC 249; State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar (2000)
       10 SCC 337; Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan [2018] 3 SCR 847 :
       (2018) 5 SCC 678; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001]
       Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Pawan Kumar v. State of
       Himachal Pradesh [2017] 3 SCR 458 : (2017) 7 SCC 780; Madan
       Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8
       SCC 628; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [2014] 4 SCR 988 :
       (2014) 12 SCC 595; Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab [2012] 11
       SCR 802 : (2012) 13 SCC 627; State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal
       [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         969

       Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


                            List of Keywords
     Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 107 of Penal Code,
     1860; Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 45 of
     Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Proximate prior act; Direct consequence
     of such continuous harassment; Last proximate incident; Mens rea;
     Suicide; Suicide note; Instigation or causation of suicide.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
     2177-2185 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2022 of the High
     Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP Nos. 1806, 1538, 1653,
     1809, 1808, 1811, 1812, 1813 and 1807 of 2021

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Advs., Nitin Sangra,
     Upmanyu Tewari, Chandertanay Choube.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv.,
     Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B.
     Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey,
     Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Hiten Venegavkar, Prashant R.
     Dahat, Sunny Bhimra, Mugdha Pande, Vaibhav Thaledi, Ajay
     Awasthi, T.R.B. Sivakumar, Hiten Venegavkar, Prashant R Dahat,
     Ms. Priya Mittal, Akshansh Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Prashant
     R. Dahat, Puneet Yadav, Sourabh Gupta, Rameshwar Prasad
     Goyal, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishor Sah, Adarsh Kumar Pandey,
     Vignesh Singh, Aditya S. Jadhav, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Mukesh Kumar
     Maroria, Harish Pandey, Shashwat Parihar, S.N. Terdal.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     K. Vinod Chandran, J.

     Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or
     rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts
970                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case,
       would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at the receiving end
       commits suicide, is a vexed question the Courts are called upon to
       decide when a charge is raised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
       Code, 18601. Despite a wealth of precedents, the police still have
       not come to terms with what constitutes an abetment as envisaged
       under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, now Sections
       108 & 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232; in pari materia. On
       a complaint raised, FIRs are registered, investigation carried out and
       for reason of abject ignorance or on tainted instigation or at times
       deliberate design, the alleged perpetrator is even taken into custody
       without examining the existence of mens rea.
2.     A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22.02.2021,
       leaving behind a suicide note which named persons, both in the
       administration and the police, who according to him, conspired to
       defame, degrade and demean him so as to end his political career
       and bring down his social standing, thus driving him to suicide; which
       he proclaimed in his last note, was his only option. The accused,
       the respondents herein; named in the suicide note, filed separate
       applications to quash the FIR, under Section 482 of the Code of
       Criminal Procedure, 19733, which were allowed by the High Court by
       a common order, against which the present appeals have been filed.
3.     Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
       appellant took us through the minutes of the Committee of Privileges
       in the Lok Sabha which had been looking into the complaints raised,
       on breach of parliamentary privileges, by the deceased. It is pointed
       out that the accused were named by the deceased before the
       Committee and from the various statements made, it is discernible
       that a concerted effort was underway to diminish his public image
       and finish off his political life. The statements of the witnesses;
       read over to us, it is argued would clearly indicate that there was
       an attempt also of extortion and an attempt of forceful takeover of
       a college owned and managed by a Trust, formed by the deceased.
       A conspiracy was hatched to tarnish his political image, especially



1    the ‘IPC’
2    the ‘BNS’
3    the ‘Cr.PC’
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          971

        Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


      because he had won as an independent candidate, without any
      political affiliation, to the Lok Sabha seven times.
4.    Answering the query regarding absence of a live link with the alleged
      harassment, it was pointed out that the deceased was a man of
      public standing and the continuous humiliation he suffered at the
      hands of the administration, which was pursued unabated, despite
      his raising it before the Committee of Privileges, eventually led to the
      drastic step. The Division Bench of the High Court failed to look into
      the suicide note or the material on record which surely warrants a
      trial and definitely not a quashing as has been done under Section
      482, Cr.PC. Reliance was placed on Dammu Sreenu v. State of
      Andhra Pradesh4, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar5, and
      Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan6. It was argued on the strength
      of these precedents that there could be circumstances and instances
      when the death by suicide is not preceded by a proximate incident.
      The totality of the circumstances has to be looked into and it is only
      in the rarest of rare cases, where there is absolutely no evidence or
      the charges are not made out prima facie that trial can be frustrated
      by resort to Section 482, Cr. PC.
5.    Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
      respondent State rests contend with the statement of law coming
      out from the various precedents, a compilation of which has been
      placed before us. It is pointed out that the allegations, on the face of
      it, arise from oversensitivity. Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior
      Counsel appearing for one of the accused, the Administrator, points
      out that there was no complaint of extortion before the Parliamentary
      Committee and it was for the first time raised in the suicide note. The
      witnesses are all associates of the deceased who have merely paid
      lip service to the suicide note. It is pointed out that even as per the
      FIR, the deceased had written a letter to the Administrator, less than
      a month before his death, seeking his help which clearly indicates
      that the allegation of conspiracy levelled against the Administrator is
      without any basis. The accusation of extortion is one made for the
      first time in the suicide note and was never complained of anywhere



4    (2009) 14 SCC 249
5    (2000) 10 SCC 337
6    (2018) 5 SCC 678
972                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


        including the Privileges Committee. The learned Counsel appearing
        for the other respondents too urged that the judgment of the High
        Court is unimpeachable and requires to be upheld.
6.      The Division Bench which considered the matter has listed out the
        various acts and omissions of the police and the administration, which
        constituted the continued harassment complained of, as has been
        reproduced in the statement of the son, which led to the registration
        of the FIR. According to the appellant; the son of the deceased
        who is also the first informant, the officers of the administration,
        under the orders of the Administrator were targeting the deceased,
        tarnishing his image and reputation. Briefly put, the conspiracy was
        hatched with the intention of taking over SSR College and further
        to prevent the deceased from contesting the next elections. At the
        instructions of the Administrator the other accused threatened and
        insulted the deceased in public, giving short shrift to his status as
        a Parliamentarian and attempted to extort money. By reason of
        such continuous torture inflicted, the deceased who belonged to
        a Scheduled Tribe, was forced to commit suicide. It was stated in
        the First Information Statement7 that, on being made aware of the
        death of his father, the informant came to Mumbai, took back the
        body of the deceased on the same day to Silvasa and later, on
        01.03.2021 when he enquired about the investigation he was told
        of the suicide note, which was handed over along with the minutes
        of the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges, based on which the FIS
        was recorded on 09.03.2021.
7.      The deceased raised his voice against the Administrator and the
        maladministration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in the Parliament and
        also in the media, which received a lot of publicity. This enraged
        the Administrator at whose instance the local administration and
        police deliberately harassed the deceased and intentionally insulted
        him in public. The instances of such public humiliation were stated
        to be numerous. The M.P. was not invited or allowed to speak at
        the function celebrating the Liberation Day of Dadra and Nagar
        Haveli, which fell on 02.08.2020, against which he had lodged a
        complaint before the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and its Committee
        of Privileges. Another instance of violation of protocol occurred when


7      for short ‘FIS’
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        973

       Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


     the M.P. was not invited to a programme attended by the Union
     Minister of State (Home), in his constituency and spreading a canard
     of the M.P. having deliberately kept away from the function. The
     authorised representative of the deceased was not given a hearing
     by the Deputy Collector who was considering a civil suit, against
     which representative an illegal complaint was filed. And lastly a
     reinvestigation attempted of a criminal case by an Inspector at the
     behest of the Superintendent of Police.
8.   The only private individual arrayed as an accused in the FIR was
     accused of circulating defamatory video clips on the social media
     platforms. One of the accused, a Talati (Revenue Official) also lodged
     a false and baseless complaint against the deceased in the office
     of the Administrator. The administrative officers failed to follow the
     established etiquette due to an M.P., in official and public functions
     and disrespected the deceased, to bring disrepute. These actions
     were alleged to be intended at preventing the participation of the
     M.P. in official functions and on public platforms, declining him a
     fair hearing and lowering his public image. A further statement also
     is seen recorded detailing the threats levelled on the deceased to
     further the process of take-over of SSR College, run by a Trust
     formed by the deceased, demand of Rs.25 crores and the arrest of
     a close associate of the deceased.
9.   We would first look at the precedents placed before us, which, we
     have to pertinently observe, turns on the facts of each case. The
     decisions relied on by the de facto complainant are specifically on the
     requirement of a proximate incident to suicide, being not imperative.
     In Surinder Kumar5 the deceased was accused of stealing 10 grams
     of gold and committed the extreme act after 20 days. An application
     under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the High Court,
     which order was set aside by this Court, pointing out that the guilt or
     otherwise of the accused would have to be decided on the basis of
     the evidence; without any discussion on the question of delay, which
     again was only of 20 days. There cannot be any dictum ferreted out
     from the said decision but for the broad principle that ordinarily a
     case will have to proceed for trial and be decided on the evidence
     led and the closure at the initial stage can only be on the principles
     laid down regarding invocation of the extra ordinary power under
     Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
974                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


10. In Dammu Sreenu4, the deceased, troubled by his wife carrying on
    an illicit relationship, sent her for counselling, to her parental home.
    The paramour, who was the appellant, enraged with the act of the
    deceased went to his house and proclaimed his intention to continue
    the relationship and later took the wife away from her brother’s
    house. The wife returned to her parental house on 06.01.1996 and
    the husband committed suicide on the night of 07.01.1996. It was
    found that there was proximate instigation and intimidation which
    led to the suicide, which acts of the accused 1 and 2 had a direct
    nexus to the death of the deceased.
11. Munshiram6 again was a marital dispute with the husband at the
    receiving end, who met his end at his own hands. The wife had
    initiated multiple legal actions against the husband which were once
    compromised and then resurrected. The husband committed suicide,
    leaving behind two suicide notes specifically alleging illicit relationship
    on the wife, and an attempt, along with her family, to take over the
    factory belonging to the father of the deceased/husband. The High
    Court invoked the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
    the proceedings which was reversed by this Court. It was found on
    a reading of the FIR, as also the FSL report; which categorically
    found similarity in the handwriting on the suicide note, to the admitted
    handwriting of the deceased, that the case was not one which could
    be quashed at the initial stage and requires evidence to be led.
12. Much reliance was placed on Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of
    Haryana8 which again was a case in which an 18-year-old girl hanged
    herself for reason of the continued harassment and humiliation meted
    out by her own relatives, who were at logger heads with the family of
    the deceased. Admittedly there were criminal cases pending between
    the families, who were related to each other. The first accused who
    was in the status of her uncle had been repeatedly referring to the
    young girl as his wife which was actively supported by the brother
    and even the sons of the first accused. The public humiliation
    meted out and the canard spread by the accused resulted in her
    engagement being broken off. There was a proximate incident on
    the previous day of the suicide, when the accused together, publicly
    taunted the deceased, which resulted in an altercation; witnessed by


8      (2019) 17 SCC 301
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                975

        Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


      PW2 and spoken of by the deceased to her mother, PW11. It is on
      the unwavering testimony of the witnesses regarding the continued
      harassment and the just prior incident, which led to the suicide that
      the conviction entered was upheld by this Court.
13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only
    indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide
    was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a
    direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the
    suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude
    Singh7. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh9 which was a
    case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go
    wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court
    opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that
    she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20:
             “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
             or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement
             of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
             must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
             must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
             consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
             consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
             present one is not a case where the accused had by his
             acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
             created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
             no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
             instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
             fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
             to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
                       [underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis]

14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal10,
    wherein it was held so:
             “If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide
             was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and



9    (2001) 9 SCC 618
10   (1994) 1 SCC 73
976                                                             [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


              differences in domestic life quite common to the society
              to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord
              and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
              circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
              suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied
              for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
              the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh11 was a case of
    elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the boy,
    later acquitted on the girl’s testimony in his favour. The boy continued
    to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding
    initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat
    led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of
    a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. While
    upholding the conviction entered into by the High Court reversing
    the acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of
    the words ‘abetment’ and ‘instigate’:
              “43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are
              required to address whether there has been abetment in
              committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation
              of harassment without any positive action in proximity to
              the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that
              led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of
              Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that
              is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things
              will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere
              reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status
              of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates
              a situation for the victim to put an end to life.
              44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts
              and by his continuous course of conduct created such a
              situation as a consequence of which the deceased was
              left with no other option except to commit suicide. The
              active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put
              an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material



11     (2017) 7 SCC 780
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            977

        Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


             on record which compels the Court to conclude that the
             victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
             petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite
             common to the society to which the victim belonged. On
             the other hand, the accused has played active role in
             tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim
             which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty
             meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish
             her life spark.”
      Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised while
      also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village setting, also
      belonging to the poor strata of society, was threatened and teased
      constantly, resulting in her resort to the extreme step. The accused
      would have known that his acts would lead to the drastic consequence.
16. Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal12 also held:
             “Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being
             any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
             the part of the accused which led or compelled the person
             to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
             is not sustainable.”
17. S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan13 emphasised the requirement
    of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
    committing suicide. Looking at Section 306, it was held so :
             “… in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
             there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
             It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
             deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
             must have been intended to push the deceased into such
             a position that he committed suicide.”
18. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)14 spoke on the
    suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which were complex
    and multifaceted (sic). It was held that:



12   (2010) 1 SCC 707
13   (2010) 12 SCC 190
14   (2009) 16 SCC 605
978                                                              [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


             “Different individuals in the same situation react and behave
             differently because of the personal meaning they add to
             each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to
             suicide. Each individual’s suicidability pattern depends on
             his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and
             loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and
             exacerbating contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to
             end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-
             protection or an escapism from intolerable self.”
19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat15 was a case in which the
    accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the
    deceased and spoken as to how he was still alive despite the insults
    levelled. There was also a suicide note in which the deceased, a
    driver, accused his employer of having driven him to suicide. Despite
    such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that there
    was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could
    even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306
    of the I.P.C.
20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was
    interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
    and Anr.16 (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner:
             “14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
             interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
             established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide,
             it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
             instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
             must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by
             the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal
             a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and
             should put the victim in such a position that he/she would
             have no other option but to commit suicide.
             15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a
             plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a
             mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another


15   (2010) 8 SCC 628
16   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             979

       Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


           person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under
           Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require
           the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another
           person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the
           part of the accused person being apparent from the face
           of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot
           be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct
           or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left
           the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.”
21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a
    person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without
    a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or
    abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be
    sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before
    cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment,
    continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section
    306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act
    to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such
    continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally
    driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively,
    ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that
    occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act
    of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends
    on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and
    demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens
    rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at
    one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his
    life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting
    abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in
    the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but
    to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which
    cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that
    other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose
    of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts
    or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability
    could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and
980                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the
       victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the
       victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can
       be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as
       the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case.
       The social status, the community setting, the relationship between
       the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case
       from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
       there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another
       person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment
       under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often
    a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be
    found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to
    suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond
    and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few
    runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme
    step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the
    person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to
    clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of
    the penal provisions under Section 306.
25. In this context, useful reference can be made to Sections 113A & 113B
    of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing statutory presumptions in
    aid of Sections 498A & 304B, respectively, of the IPC. When a woman
    dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, if it is shown that
    she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative, there
    arises a presumption that the husband or such relative abetted the
    suicide, in which event the penalty under Section 306 is attracted.
    The presumption under Section 113A was statutorily employed by
    the Parliament, realizing the menace and in an attempt to prevent
    domestic violence unleashed on women in the patriarchal society, by
    deterrence. This exercise would not have been necessary if Section
    107 did provide for finding abetment without conscious instigation
    constituting mens rea. This Court held in Mangat Ram v. State of
    Haryana17 that the provision only enabled the court to presume on
    the abetment, having due regard to all other circumstances of the


17   (2014) 12 SCC 595
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         981

        Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


      case and drawing such presumption is purely within the discretion
      of the Court.
26. We also notice Section 304B which penalises the death of a woman,
    caused by any burns and bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than
    under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage; if
    it is shown that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment
    by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her
    death, in connection with any demand for dowry, as ‘a dowry death’,
    punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
    seven years and which extends to imprisonment for life. In law this is
    made possible by the presumption brought about by Section 113B;
    which all the same requires a proximate incident, as discernible from
    the words employed, in both Sections 113B & 304B, of ‘ … and it is
    shown that soon before her death such woman was subjected to…’
    cruelty or harassment with a demand for dowry.
27. Kashmir Kaur v. State of Punjab18 considered the import of the
    words “soon before”. It was held that “soon before” is a relative
    term depending on the circumstances of each case and there can
    be no straitjacket formula prescribed. It normally implies existence
    of proximate or live link between the demand of dowry amounting
    to cruelty and the death. It cannot be so remote that it is stale but
    all the same no narrow meaning can be assigned to the words to
    defeat the purpose of the provision.
28. Disputes in marital spaces are not uncommon. Tragically dowry
    demands, despite punitive legislation, is the major cause for domestic
    violence, unnatural death and suicide within marital spaces. Hence,
    a presumption was drawn on the dowry death of a woman, within
    7 years of marriage, by the legislature, carefully incorporating the
    requirement of a proximate trigger. It cannot be said that the said
    requirement is absent in bringing home a conviction for abetment to
    suicide. If it is so held, then it would follow that when a poor woman
    commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage, pursuant to a “soon
    before” incident, it would be a dowry death. But if the death occurs
    after 7 years, then there will be no reason to look for a proximate
    trigger. The necessity to find a trigger, proximate to the suicide cannot
    at all be wished away.


18   (2012) 13 SCC 627
982                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


29. At the outset, on the facts coming out in the present case, it is to
    be noticed that the deceased was no ordinary person, though he
    had his roots in a marginalised community. There is no allegation of
    any public humiliation on the basis of caste or a casteist slur having
    been spoken. He rose up in the political front presumably by his grit
    and determination, especially having been elected to the Lok Sabha
    seven times, loosing only once in three decades, that too as an
    independent candidate. The first of these allegations, which allegedly
    led to the suicide refers to an incident on the 2nd of August 2020,
    the Liberation Day of the Union Territory, including the constituency
    of the deceased. The deceased was not given proper respect and
    regard due to an M.P., was the allegation. This has to be looked
    at, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, which indicates curbs
    imposed for reason of the Covid pandemic, raging at that time, the
    country having opened up after the worldwide lockdown. Restrictions
    were imposed on official functions and public celebrations were toned
    down, to arrest the spread of the pandemic. The further allegation is
    regarding the M.P. having not been invited for a function in which the
    Minister of State for Home, of the Union Government, participated, that
    took place in December 2020. The deceased M.P. was a seasoned
    politician, and we cannot infer such instances of disrespect alone
    having goaded him into suicide, that too after a couple of months.
30. The Parliamentarian stood up to the insult and approached the
    Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha, the minutes of which have
    been produced and painstakingly read over to us by the learned
    Senior Counsel. The deceased was a person of standing, aware of
    his rights and privileges and conscious of the remedies possible.
    Insofar as the allegation of circulation of news items and videos,
    as alleged against a private individual, it was pointed out that the
    deceased had issued a legal notice alleging defamation.
31. While highlighting the above referred two instances, the M.P. had
    also spoken of other instances of harassment by certain officers, not
    named, but their designations spoken of before the Committee of
    Privileges. In fact, when speaking of the Deputy Collector as seen
    from the written complaint and also the statements made, he is
    said to have misbehaved not only with the M.P. but also with other
    persons in the political arena. Probably, an officer who oversteps
    his authority, but it is difficult to discern any conspiracy by the entire
    administration at the instigation of the Administrator.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         983

       Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


32. The Parliamentarian also spoke of an investigation in a crime having
    been reopened but does not speak on any specifics about the crime
    proper or its nature. The policemen-accused; an Inspector and a
    Superintendent of Police, have clearly stated that they were not
    involved in such reinvestigation and had also in their counter affidavit
    pointed out that the crime number referred by the M.P. was wrong.
33. It is also pertinent that before the Committee of Privileges, there is
    no whisper about the Administrator or the extortion attempted or even
    the take over of the trust as alleged. In any event, the Committee of
    Privileges had seriously considered the complaint raised by the M.P.
    and the Chairman of the Committee, had on 12.02.2021 informed
    the M.P. of the investigation initiated insofar as the conduct of the
    administration, as recorded in the minutes. It was also recorded that
    a letter has been sent for the safety of the M.P. The dated minutes,
    in which the same was recorded, is produced at page 190 of the
    SLP. The M.P. then travelled to Mumbai, presumably with his fears
    assuaged and the insults he complained of mitigated, by the action
    proposed by the Committee of Privileges. After 10 days on 22.02.2021,
    without any intervening circumstance or incident, the Parliamentarian
    committed suicide. Neither the incident of 02.08.2020 nor the failure of
    the administration alleged in December 2020; both of not respecting
    the hierarchical protocol for an M.P., can be seen as an instigation
    or causation of suicide or the proximate and prior trigger.
34. One other allegation raised is of the arrest of an associate who was
    authorised to represent the MP in a case before the Deputy Collector. It
    has been clarified in the counter affidavit that the preventive detention
    of the said person under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities
    Act, 1985 was confirmed by the Advisory Board chaired by a retired
    Chief Justice of a High Court. The allegation of extortion has never
    been raised, either in the complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or in the
    statements made before the Privileges Committee.
35. Emphasis was laid by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
    appellant, on the suicide note which too was meticulously read over
    to us, from the translated copy produced as Annexure P/12. Before
    we look into the suicide note, we cannot but observe that going by
    the FIS, the suicide note, presumably was discovered by the police
    when the body was detected. The appellant who had gone to Mumbai,
    on hearing about his father’s death was not immediately informed
984                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       of the suicide note. On that day, when the body was taken back to
       Silvassa for the last rites, there was also no FIR registered on the
       basis of the suicide note. Surely an FIR would have been registered
       for unnatural death as provided under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. If
       a suicide note had been recovered, with the discovery of the body
       or later, then necessarily it has to be seized and a FIR registered
       and investigation commenced under Section 157 which enables the
       police officer to commence the investigation after sending a report to
       the jurisdictional Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such
       offence. Under Section 157 the investigation has to be commenced
       on information received under Section 154 or ‘otherwise’ of a
       cognizable offence.
36. It was later, even according to the FIS; on 01.03.2021, the suicide note
    was handed over to the appellant, when enquiries were made with
    the police. The appellant registers the FIR, still later on 09.03.2021.
    There is nothing produced either by the appellant or the State to
    show that the suicide note was recovered along with the body; which
    definitely would have been indicated in the Mahazar recorded at the
    inquest. There is also no verification carried out of the handwriting
    in the suicide note, juxtaposed with the admitted handwriting of the
    deceased. Above all, the suicide note makes pointed allegations
    against named individuals, which was not done earlier. It is for the
    first time that the Administrator was mentioned, with an allegation of
    extortion and attempt to forcefully take-over a Trust and the college
    it runs. The actions of the officers of the administration, alleged to
    be a direct result of the conspiracy hatched by the Administrator to
    coerce the petitioner, was never raised any time earlier. We cannot
    place any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case
    of abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written
    complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or the statements made before
    the Committee of Privileges.
37. If the executive officers are disrespectful to a Parliamentarian, the
    people’s representative is entitled to demand and get his due status
    recognised by virtue of the legislative office he holds and also the
    electoral support he retains. As a seasoned politician would do, he
    raised the issue before the Committee of Privileges, which initiated
    necessary action, in which circumstance, we cannot find the suicide
    to be a direct result of the actions complained of. Tragically a life is
    lost, leaving questions unanswered. Despite our anxious reading and
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       985

         Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.


      re-reading, the complaints made, the statements recorded, the suicide
      note; over which there is a cloud, and the subsequent conduct of
      the police regarding the delay in registering a crime and the casual
      statements made in the FIR, persuade us to negate the contention
      that the allegations levelled were the direct causation of the death.
38. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to the
    various statements made by the son and others associated with
    the M.P. It was argued that at least, the statements should have
    persuaded the resort to a full-fledged trial rather than a quashing of
    the FIR, which quashing, in the given facts is presumptuous. We are
    not convinced, since we cannot incorporate those statements made
    by others, a clear hearsay, into the written complaint. The statements
    made by the deceased himself, bereft of the various allegations in
    the suicide note, do not sketch out a case for abetment of suicide.
    As has been held in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal19, the allegations
    in the FIS or the complaint do not constitute any offence or make
    out a case against the accused.
39. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court had
    rightly quashed the proceedings, finding the charge of abetment to
    commit suicide to be absent. Much emphasis was laid on the charge
    of extortion, which has been first stated in the suicide note and
    not disclosed in any of the complaints earlier made to the Hon’ble
    Speaker or the Committee of Privileges.
40. True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a humiliation
    or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme act of ending his
    own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily mean that the
    alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead the victim to eventual
    death by his own or her own hands. We find no such instigation
    on the part of the accused in this case, or a definitive abetment to
    suicide, as alleged in the FIR. There arises a cloud on the suicide
    note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the
    proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in
    which the note was introduced in the case. Before the Committee
    of Privileges, no reference was made to the various allegations in
    the suicide note, against the named officers. We have found the
    suicide note to be suspect and we are not convinced that there is


19   (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
986                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       any modicum of material in the case to find abetment of suicide.
       The High Court was not in error, when it quashed the FIR, when no
       case is made out from the FIS.
41. The Criminal Appeals stand dismissed.
42.        Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan