SHENBAGAVALLI AND ORS.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AND ANR.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2451 : 2025 INSC 607

                  Shenbagavalli and Ors.
                             v.
  The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 4268 of 2024)
                                  30 April 2025
           [Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted
       against them u/s.306 IPC.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Victim-deceased and accused
       no.7 got married on 15.09.2013 – Relationship deteriorated –
       It is alleged that on 10.11.2013 accused persons came to the
       residence of the victim and abused him and his family members
       with filthy language – Accused no.7 left with other accused
       persons to her parental house – Victim committed suicide on
       09.12.2013 – Chargesheet filed against the appellants u/s.306
       of IPC – Appellants sought quashing of same u/s.482 of CrPC
       before the High Court, which was dismissed – Correctness:
       Held: What turns out primarily from the sequence of events,
       statements and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the
       actual date of suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact
       whatsoever either in person or by phone or any other means
       between the deceased or his relatives and his wife or any of the other
       accused which would indicate continuous harassment or torture
       or any sort of pressure at the hands of the accused appellants on
       the deceased – Therefore, there is no proximity of any harassment
       or instigation prior to the incident of suicide having taken place –
       Otherwise also the contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any
       active or direct act which can be said to have led the deceased to
       commit suicide leaving him no option but to push the deceased into
       a position that he committed suicide – From the suicide note, no
       abetment can be said to have been established that the accused
       instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or
       harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of
       suicide – Merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment

* Author
2452                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact
    of any sort on the part of the appellants, till the time of occurrence
    which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have
    committed suicide, the offence has not been made out – With the
    very element of abetment conspicuously absent from the allegations
    made in the FIR which is primarily based upon the suicide note,
    the essential requirements for constituting an offence u/s.306
    IPC remain unfulfilled – As such, the continuation of the criminal
    proceedings initiated against the appellants would amount to an
    abuse of the process of law. [Paras 14, 17]

                             Case Law Cited
    Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR 703 :
    (2019) 17 SCC 301 – relied on.
    Mahendra Singh and Another Gayatribai v. State of M.P. (1995)
    Supp. 3 SCC 731; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
    Another [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190; Netai Dutta v.
    State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659; Mohit Singhal and Another v.
    State of Uttarakhand and Others (2024) 1 SCC 417; Amalendu Pal
    alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010)
    1 SCC 707; M. Arjunan v. State represented by its inspector of
    Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and
    Another [2021] 10 SCR 393 : (2021) 19 SCC 144 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
    Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860; Matrimonial dispute; Harassment;
    Suicide; Abetment; Aid; Instigate; Abetment to suicide; Abuse of
    the process of law; Suicide note.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    4268 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2018 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Madras in CROP No. 3278 of 2016
    With
    Criminal Appeal No. 4269 of 2024
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2453

                       Shenbagavalli And Ors. v.
        The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Ms. Rebecca John, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Sr. Advs., John
     Mathew, Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Ms. Monika, Anurag Kashyap.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., D.Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S, Sheikh
     F Kalia, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand
     Panigrahi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Augustine George Masih, J.

1.   These two criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment
     dated 13.04.2018, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High
     Court, which dismissed the petitions preferred by the Appellants
     under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the chargesheet submitted
     against them under Section 306 IPC. The relevant basic facts of the
     case are that the deceased Dinesh and Pushpakalashree (Accused
     No. 7) got married on 15.09.2013. Both are well qualified, as the
     deceased was an engineer whereas Accused No. 7 is an MBA
     graduate.
2.   Soon after the marriage, relationship between the couple deteriorated.
     It is alleged that on 10.11.2013, Accused No. 1 to 6 came to the
     residence of the deceased and had a quarrel. They not only abused
     the deceased and his family with filthy language but also insulted
     the deceased by calling him impotent and infertile. Accused No. 7
     went along with Accused No. 1 to 6 to her parental house.
3.   The prosecution’s case rests on the assertion that the deceased from
     10.11.2013 to 09.12.2013 was continuously subjected to harassment
     by Accused No.1 to 7, owing to which Dinesh committed suicide.
4.   Initially, the Police registered a case under Section 174 CrPC based
     upon the complaint made by Mr. K. Suresh (Respondent No. 2),
     the younger brother of the deceased. It is also asserted that while
     taking away Accused No. 7 along with them, the other co-accused
2454                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     threatened that they would get a dowry case registered against the
     deceased and his mother to get them arrested.
5.   Due to this shame, degradation and depression, the deceased had
     stopped coming out of his house to face the public. During the course
     of investigation, the deceased’s mother – Ambika handed over torn
     pages of a diary allegedly maintained by the deceased containing
     a suicide note disclosing the continued harassment undergone by
     the deceased at the hands of Accused No. 1 to 7. In the light of the
     above, the FIR was registered under Section 306 by altering it from
     Section 174 of CrPC. After the conversion of the case under Section
     306 of IPC and on completion of the investigation, a chargesheet
     was filed against the appellants which was committed to the Court
     of Sessions in S.C. No. 9 of 2016.
6.   On such presentation of the chargesheet followed by committal
     proceedings, a petition under Section 482 of CrPC was preferred
     before the High Court challenging the same on the ground that no
     offence under Section 306 is made out even going by the alleged
     suicide note which is based upon the torn pages of the diary of the
     deceased which was being maintained by him. The ingredients of
     Section 306 were not made out. The other aspects with regard to
     the aspect of there being flaws in the investigation were also pointed
     out. The High Court on considering the submissions made by the
     parties proceeded to dismiss the same leading to the filing of the
     present appeals.
7.   It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that
     the alleged suicide note does not specify the date on which it was
     written. It is asserted that although it is the stand of the prosecution
     that the torn pages of the diary were sent to the forensic laboratory,
     but no such report has been placed on record identifying it to be
     the handwriting of the deceased. It is asserted that the incident of
     harassment which led to the deceased committing suicide took place
     on 10.11.2013 whereas the suicide incident had taken place after
     one month i.e. 09.12.2013.
8.   Going by the suicide note, Accused No. 7, along with two others had
     visited the house of the deceased only once after the incident, i.e.
     the next day (11.11.2013) and thereafter there has been no further
     contact with them.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2455

                         Shenbagavalli And Ors. v.
          The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

9.    There is nothing on record to indicate that, on the date of the
      unfortunate incident or any time in close proximity thereof there was
      any act of instigation on the part of the Appellants. On this basis, it
      is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are
      not fulfilled, as there appears to be no provocation or instigative act
      in close temporal proximity to the incident. The language employed
      in the suicide note does not reflect any direct inducement that left
      the deceased with no other recourse but to take such an extreme
      step. Even assuming that the notes were authored by the deceased,
      a reading of their contents suggests that the deceased may have
      been emotionally sensitive and possibly reacted with disproportionate
      gravity to the events in question. While the remark allegedly made—
      questioning the manhood of the deceased could be hurtful and may
      affect a person’s dignity but it cannot, in itself and especially after
      a gap of nearly a month between the incident and the suicide, it
      cannot be construed as a sufficient provocation that would impel
      an ordinary, reasonable person to take such an irrevocable step.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance upon
    Mahendra Singh and Another Gayatribai V. State of M.P.,1 S.S.
    Chheena V. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another,2 Netai Dutta V.
    State of W.B.,3 Mohit Singhal and Another V. State of Uttarakhand
    and Others4 and Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu V. State of West
    Bengal5 to support his contentions. Prayer has thus been made
    that the present appeals may be allowed, and the chargesheet as
    presented be quashed by setting aside the impugned order of the
    High Court.
11. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
    allegations in the suicide note would be enough to prima facie support
    the commission of the offence at the hands of the Appellants. It would be
    a question of trial to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence
    and therefore it would not be appropriate at this stage to interfere.



1    (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 731
2    (2010) 12 SCC 190
3    (2005) 2 SCC 659
4    (2024) 1 SCC 417
5    (2010) 1 SCC 707
2456                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports



     Learned Counsel has also supported the judgment passed by the High
     Court. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the present appeals.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the
    parties and have gone through the pleadings especially the alleged
    suicide note authored by deceased Dinesh. A perusal of the same
    would show that only four people have been held responsible for
    the suicide whose names have been mentioned therein. The primary
    reason as has been pointed out appears to be the marriage having
    not worked out between the two i.e. the deceased and Accused No.
    7, his wife.
13. The incident which triggered the act of actual suicide according
    to the suicide note, is when relatives of his wife, who have been
    arrayed as accused and appellants here, barged into their house
    on 10.11.2013. They started abusing the deceased and his mother
    using filthy language. They were alleged to have manhandled them.
    Thereafter wife of the deceased having gone along with them to her
    parental home and while going out they shouted publicly that the
    deceased was impotent. Further, his wife had threatened him to
    publish, on internet, his nude photographs taken by her. Thereafter,
    the allegations which come out is that on the very next day i.e.
    11.11.2013 his wife (accused No.7) along with two other persons
    came to their house for discussion about the incident which had
    taken place on 10.11.2013 which indicated it to be a well-planned and
    executed incident to damage the reputation of the family. Allegations
    regarding illicit relations of his wife and threat of false implication in
    a dowry case has been highlighted.
14. What turns out primarily from the sequence of events, statements
    and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the actual date of
    suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever either
    in person or by phone or any other means between the deceased or
    his relatives and his wife or any of the other accused which would
    indicate continuous harassment or torture or any sort of pressure at
    the hands of the accused Appellants on the deceased. Therefore,
    there is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the
    incident of suicide having taken place. Otherwise also the contents
    of the FIR do not in itself indicate any active or direct act which can
    be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       2457

                        Shenbagavalli And Ors. v.
         The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

     option but to push the deceased into a position that he committed
     suicide. From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have
     been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there
     being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make
     out an offence of abetment of suicide. Merely on the basis of the
     allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between
     there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till
     the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled
     the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been
     made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly
     present and visible, which is missing in the present case. It involves
     a mental process of instigating a person and without a positive act
     on the part of the Appellants which can be said to either to instigate
     or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot
     be said to have been present.
15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first
    requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential,
    the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of
    abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement
    by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing
    or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly
    intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing.
    In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that
    the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are
    (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate
    or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act
    of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive
    language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There
    should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such
    act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State
    represented by its inspector of Police)6
16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others V. State of Haryana,7
    it has been observed in para 16 as follows:



6   (2019) 3 SCC 315
7   [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301
2458                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
        be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
        commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
        the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
        context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
        vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes
        of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
        of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
        looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
        incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
        suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
        by another person would not suffice unless there be such
        action on the part of the accused which compels the person
        to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to
        be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person
        has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not,
        could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances
        of each case.
        16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
        commission of suicide by another, the consideration would
        be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
        of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
        decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge
        forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
        persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
        and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
        expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
        commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
        guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if
        the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
        conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
        perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
        case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC.
        If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
        esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
        draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
        held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
        rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         2459

                        Shenbagavalli And Ors. v.
         The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

            examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
            the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
            nature where the accused intended nothing more than
            harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
            fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,
            if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
            by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
            provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
            suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
            human behaviour, each case is required to be examined
            on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
            factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
            accused and the deceased.”
17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment
    to suicide, and the said ingredients having not been fulfilled, the
    further continuation of proceedings would not be sustainable. The
    other evidence such as statements, sought to be relied upon by the
    prosecution, apart from the suicide note, does not in any manner
    advance the case of the prosecution, particularly when the foundation
    of the case is the suicide note itself. With the very element of abetment
    conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR which is
    primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential requirements for
    constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC remain unfulfilled. As
    such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against
    the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The
    Court cannot permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments
    of harassment or unjust prosecution.
18. The Court would not hesitate to exercise its extraordinary powers
    which are inherent to quash such proceedings when it comes to fore,
    and the court is satisfied that allowing the proceedings to continue
    would be an abuse of process of Court or that the ends of the justice
    require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Reference in this
    regard may be made to the Judgment of this Court in Geo Varghese
    V. State of Rajasthan and Another.8



8   [2021] 10 SCR 393 : (2021) 19 SCC 144
2460                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


19. In the light of the above findings, when offence under Section 306
    itself is not being made out continuance of the proceedings against
    the Appellants cannot be permitted.
20. The present appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgment dated
    13.04.2018 passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set
    aside. Proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016 pending before the Assistant
    Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, are also quashed and set aside.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.


     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan