'Instigation Must Have Close Proximity To Suicide', Supreme Court Quashes Abetment To Suicide Case Against Business Partners

Observing that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim, the Supreme Court on Thursday (March 27) upheld the quashing of an abetment to suicide case against the business partner of the deceased, who committed suicide alleging harassment from his business partner.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the special leave petition filed by the deceased's wife challenging the Karnataka High Court's order quashing an FIR registered against Respondents 2 to 4 (accused) under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

The appellant's deceased husband was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions alongside Respondents 2 and 3. On April 14, 2024, he was found dead by hanging, and the police initially ruled it as a suicide.

On May 18, 2024, the appellant (his widow) allegedly discovered a suicide note in his handwriting, accusing Respondents 2 to 4 of cheating and blackmailing him, which allegedly drove him to take his own life. Following this, an FIR was registered on May 22, 2024.

However, the High Court quashed the FIR, ruling that the allegations did not establish abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC due to a lack of direct instigation. Additionally, it found no case of cheating under Section 420 IPC, reasoning that the deceased could have complained during his lifetime.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Gavai noted suicide occurred 39 days after the alleged harassment, which breaks the proximity requirement for abetment.

Reliance was placed on Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 where a one-month gap between alleged instigation and suicide was deemed insufficient for abetment.

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any case, there is no reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC.”, the court observed.

The Court noted that the decision to register an FIR was merely an afterthought as it was registered only after the suicide note was found.

The Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's decision to quash the FIR under Section 420 IPC asserting that the deceased's inability to complain during his lifetime does not bar a posthumous case if fraud is established.

“The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our view, while quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, has acted in a casual and cursory manner. If the learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that even investigation papers as collected by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, then the least that was expected of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was to give reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency which has been placed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.”, the Court observed.

“In absence of any reason given, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed.

Case Title: R. SHASHIREKHA VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Nishant, AOR Mr. Madhvendra Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Sai Shakti, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. M/S. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR