In our view, lodging an FIR, even if
it is false, against a person, per se, does
not amount to instigating that person to
commit suicide. Besides, here the FIR was
lodged by the deceased’s wife who had
suffered injuries. Otherwise also, every
individual has a right to take recourse to
appropriate proceedings under law to protect
his or her rights. Therefore, if a person
sets the criminal justice delivery system in
motion, he cannot be held liable for
abetment to commit suicide, if the person
against whom proceedings were initiated
commits suicide. {Para 22}
23. Admittedly, the appellant(s) were
residing separate from the deceased and,
therefore, they cannot be considered having
such an overbearing influence over the
deceased that they could instigate him, or
drive him, to commit suicide.
24. While assessing whether a prima facie
case of abetment to commit suicide is made
out or not, the court must not merely
consider the allegations in the suicide note
but also the surrounding facts of the case.
Merely because a dejected husband, or lover,
out of frustration, ends his life and puts
the blame on the accused, in his suicide
note, is not enough to conclude that a prima
facie case is made out against those who are
blamed. The court would have to consider
whether the conduct of the accused
complained of in ordinary circumstances
would have driven an ordinary person, not an
over sensitive person, to take that drastic
step to end his life.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026
SLP (Crl.) No(s). 18705/2025
PATEL JOSHNABEN PRAVINKUMAR PATEL & ORS. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Citation: 2026 INSC 886
Dated: August 18, 2026
1. Leave granted.
2. On 28.11.2025 notices were issued to
the respondents, returnable in six weeks. As
per Office Report, notice is served on all
the respondents. However, only the State is
represented. No one is present for the
private respondent.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant(s) and the learned counsel for the
State.
1
4. This appeal is directed against the
order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application (for quashing and
setting aside FIR/Order) No. 6654/2020. By
the impugned order the petition of the
appellant, which sought quashing of First
Information Report (“FIR”) being C.R. No.
119930042001154 of 2020 at P.S. Bhachau,
Kutch, under Sections 306 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), has been
dismissed.
5. The appellant(s) herein are motherin-
law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of
the deceased. The deceased was married to
Shraddhaben, daughter of appellant Nos. 1
and 2 and sister of appellant No.3, in the
year 2009.
6. On 06.03.2020, Shraddhaben lodged FIR
No. 11191008200120 at P.S. Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad City against the deceased under
Sections 498A and 323 IPC. In the FIR, it
1 “High Court”
2
was, inter alia, alleged that on 01.03.2020,
informant’s husband (i.e., the deceased) had
abused the informant, assaulted her, and
continued to beat her till evening. As a
result, on 02.03.2020, when the deceased
went to school for training, the informant
took her son, went to Bhachau Railway
Station and boarded a train to Delhi. On
03.03.2020, she alighted at Delhi Railway
Station. There, the police spotted her in
distress and helped her to board a return
train on 04.03.2020 to go back to her native
place. Consequently, she arrived at Bhachau
Railway Station on 05.03.2020. Thereafter,
she informed her husband (i.e., the
deceased) that she could no longer tolerate
his misdemeanor and that she would go back
to her parents’ place. Whereafter, she left
her husband and came to Ahmedabad. In the
evening her parents arrived and, thereafter,
the FIR was registered.
7. After registration of the FIR, on
06.03.2020, she was medically examined for
3
her injuries. Multiple contusions brown/
black in colour were found all over her
body.
8. On 21.03.2020, the second respondent
i.e., brother of the deceased, lodged the
impugned FIR against the present appellants,
namely, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the deceased. In the
impugned FIR it is alleged that the deceased
was harassed by the appellants in various
ways because they wanted the deceased and
their daughter i.e., deceased’s wife to
reside with them at Ahmedabad. It is alleged
that on account of their harassment, the
life of his brother had become hell. Not
only that, a false FIR was registered
against the deceased and a notice for
maintenance was also served upon the
deceased; therefore, the deceased was driven
to commit suicide.
9. The appellant(s) challenged the FIR
and the consequential proceedings under
Sections 306/114 of IPC by invoking High
4
Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(“CrPC”).
10. The High Court, however, by the
impugned order dismissed the petition by
relying upon few decisions of this Court
which dealt with the scope of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
11. Aggrieved therewith, the appellant(s)
are in appeal before us.
12. The submission on behalf of the
appellant(s) is that even as per the
allegations in the impugned FIR, the
deceased’s wife, namely, Shraddhaben, had
left her matrimonial home and had gone to
her parents’ place. Impugned FIR also
recites that an FIR was registered by
Shraddhaben against the deceased at
Ahmedabad City and that she had also served
a notice upon the deceased seeking
maintenance. It is submitted that lodging an
FIR and seeking maintenance is a person’s
right. If the accused or the notice
5
recipient commits suicide out of fear to
face the proceedings it cannot be said that
the person who lodged the FIR or sought
maintenance abetted the suicide. In such
circumstances, it is a clear case where the
deceased committed suicide on account of his
own frustrations and not because there had
been any instigation by the accused
constituting abetment.
13. The State in its response affidavit
has annexed a suicide note of the deceased.
14. We have perused the suicide note,
which has been appended as Annexure R-1 to
the counter affidavit.
15. A perusal of the suicide note would
reveal that the deceased has addressed it to
all his relatives, namely, his elder brother
i.e., the informant, his own elder sister,
his wife - Shraddhaben and his mother-in-law
and father-in-law. The suicide note would
indicate that in the opinion of the
deceased, his married life was ruined by the
appellant(s) herein, though he held no
6
grudge against his wife-Shraddhaben.
16. What is missing in the suicide note
is an allegation regarding commission of any
act by the appellants which may constitute
an abetment of suicide, either by way of
instigation, or by way of harassment to an
extent that the deceased was left with no
option but to end his life. In fact, a
careful reading of the suicide note would
indicate that the deceased was highly
depressed with the turn of events i.e., his
wife leaving the matrimonial home, which
probably led him to commit suicide.
17. In order to be sure that death of the
deceased was not homicidal, on 22.07.2026 we
had called upon the learned counsel for the
State to seek instructions whether
investigation on the impugned FIR is over,
and whether from the materials collected
during investigation, any evidence of
homicidal death was found.
18. Pursuant to our order dated
22.07.2026, the learned counsel for the
7
State has obtained instructions. As per his
instructions, there is no evidence of a
homicidal death, rather it was a case of
suicide. In such circumstances, we would
have to consider whether the allegations in
the FIR including the suicide note, in the
context of undisputed facts of the case,
make out a prima facie case of abetment of
suicide.
19. To sustain an FIR for the purposes of
investigation in respect of an offence of
abetment of suicide, particularly in cases
which are not covered by presumptive
provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872, such
as Section 113A thereof, it must be
indicated, that the person accused of the
offence had, prima facie, committed any of
those acts which amounts to abetment of a
thing.
20. Section 107 of IPC defines as to what
constitutes abetment of a thing.2 A bare
2 107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who —
First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
8
reading of Section 107 would indicate that a
person abets the doing of a thing, if he
instigates any person to do that thing; or
engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing; or intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.
21. In the instant case, the necessary
ingredients of abetment are completely
lacking either in the FIR or in the suicide
note which has been placed before us. The
allegations against the appellants, at best,
can be taken as one that they were the ones
who spoilt the marriage of their daughter
and instigated her to lodge FIR against the
that thing; or
Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.— A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by
willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing
to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of
Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A
to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.
9
deceased.
22. In our view, lodging an FIR, even if
it is false, against a person, per se, does
not amount to instigating that person to
commit suicide. Besides, here the FIR was
lodged by the deceased’s wife who had
suffered injuries. Otherwise also, every
individual has a right to take recourse to
appropriate proceedings under law to protect
his or her rights. Therefore, if a person
sets the criminal justice delivery system in
motion, he cannot be held liable for
abetment to commit suicide, if the person
against whom proceedings were initiated
commits suicide.
23. Admittedly, the appellant(s) were
residing separate from the deceased and,
therefore, they cannot be considered having
such an overbearing influence over the
deceased that they could instigate him, or
drive him, to commit suicide.
24. While assessing whether a prima facie
case of abetment to commit suicide is made
out or not, the court must not merely
consider the allegations in the suicide note
but also the surrounding facts of the case.
Merely because a dejected husband, or lover,
out of frustration, ends his life and puts
the blame on the accused, in his suicide
note, is not enough to conclude that a prima
facie case is made out against those who are
blamed. The court would have to consider
whether the conduct of the accused
complained of in ordinary circumstances
would have driven an ordinary person, not an
over sensitive person, to take that drastic
step to end his life.
25. In matrimonial relationship, often
differences arise between husband and wife
where they tend to blame each other and
institute proceedings against each other.
Initiation of such proceedings cannot by
itself be taken as an act of instigation to
commit suicide. Because, ultimately, it is
for the courts to decide whether those
proceedings are bona fide or mala fide.
26. In the present case, the suicide note
clearly indicates that the deceased was
dejected because his wife had left him and
had initiated a proceeding against him.
Whatever might be the reason for his wife to
leave her matrimonial home after 10 years of
marriage, the fact remains that she lodged
an FIR making such allegations which had
prima facie support from medical report. In
such circumstances, it could also be
possible that the deceased’s guilt complex
may have prompted him to end his life.
27. Be that as it may, we are not here to
speculate upon the reasons as to why the
deceased committed suicide. What is
important here is that the FIR as well as
the materials placed on record including the
suicide note do not disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute an abetment so as
to make out a prima facie case of abetment
of suicide against the appellants.
28. In our view, the High Court ought not
to have refrained from examining the matter
at some depth, particularly, when the
reasons for suicide were spelt out in the
FIR as well as the suicide note.
29. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to
allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside. The
impugned FIR and all consequential
proceedings are hereby quashed.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………..J
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………………………………………………..J
[VIJAY BISHNOI]
New Delhi;
August 18, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment