JUDGMENT : PURNENDU SINGH Heard Mr. Deo Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the FIR arising out of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 106 of 2020 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of the consequential court proceedings subsequent to submission of Charge-Sheet No. 294 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 in the light of supervision note submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali. 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the son of the informant (deceased), was married with petitioner No. 1, Radha Kumari, 5 years ago under Hindu customs and traditions. The wife of the deceased (petitioner no. 1) had left the house of the deceased and was residing in her father's house. On 14.05.2020, the deceased was called by petitioners at their house where hot discussion took place. It is further alleged that during the hot discussion, the petitioners had infuriated and reprimanded the deceased, due to which, the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that no case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 being own wife of the deceased, at no point of time, had ever instigated the deceased, nor any case was lodged by the deceased before the suicide note, which was found at the time of preparation of the inquest report. Learned counsel further submitted that the ingredient of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to link the petitioners with the ingredient as contained under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are completely lacking and, as such, the further criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners will be abuse of process of Court. 5. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2024) and in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025; Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11868 of 2023) and submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court has held that from very perusal of the suicide note, no case of abatement is made out. (Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2024) and in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025; Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11868 of 2023) and submitted that in the said case, the Apex Court has held that from very perusal of the suicide note, no case of abatement is made out. In the present case also, no case of abatement is made out. In furtherance of the above proposition of law, learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 following the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 . Learned counsel relying on the said judgment has drawn attention of this Court that from the very suicide note, it is not suggestive that the petitioners had ever instigated the deceased leading to suicide. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on paragraphs no. 17 and 20 of the observations made in Mahendra Awase (Supra) which are as follows: "17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under:- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “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. 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." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra)held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” [Emphasis supplied] 20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section306." 6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the State drawing the attention of this Court to suicide note, submitted that all the ingredients of Section 306 is made out against the petitioners from the very perusal of the FIR, as well as, suicide note and the quashing of the FIR at the present stage will not be in public interest. 7. Heard the parties. 8. 7. Heard the parties. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the content of the FIR, which are as follows: ^^esjk uke egsUnz jk; mez djhc 60 o"kZ firk Lo jke:p jk; lk0 xksfoUniqj >[kjkgk Fkkuk jktkikdj ftyk oS'kkyh dk fuoklh gaw vkt fnukda 15-5-20 dks le; djhc 20-42 cts vki jktkikdj Fkkuk ds tesnkj lkgc ds le{k vius ?kj ds ikl fcuk dhlh ncko ;k HksnHkko ds viuk c;ku ntZ djkrk gWwa fd esjk yM+dk ¼e`rd½ jathr dqekj jfo mez djhc 30 o"kZ gS ftldh 'kknh djhc 5 o"kZ igys jk/kk dqekjh firk pUnzdsr jk; lk0 jlqyiqj gchc Fkkuk pauiqjk vk0s ih0 Fkkuk nsljh ftyk oS'kkyh ls fgUnw fjfr fjokt ds vuqlkj 'kknh gqbZ Fkh ftlls ,d yMd+k Hkh gSA ftldk mez yxHkx 3 o"kZ gSA esjk yM+dk jtahr dqekj jfo ,oa mldh iRuh jk/kk dqekjh ls ge'skk dqN&dqN ckrksa dks ysdj nksuksa esa ckr fookn gksrs jgrk FkkA ftlls esjk yM+dk ges'kk VsUlu esa jgrk FkkA esjh cgw jk/kk dqekjh yxHkx nks ekg ls vius cPpk fj"ko ds lkFk mlds ek;ds jathr igqapk fn;k Fkk tks ogh ij jgrh gSA fnukda 15-5-20 dks xkao ds es?kukFk jk; firk Lo dihynso jk; }kjk irk pyk dh esjk csVk Qslcqd ij lkslkbZV uksV fy[kk gS] rFkk dqN njs ckr irk pyk dh tgj [kk yh;k gSA ftls jktkikdj izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz esa HkrhZ djk;k x;k tgka ls lnj vLirky gkthiqj jsQj dj fn;k x;kA ogka ls esjh csVh ,oa xkoa ds yksx x.kifr gksLihVy gkthiqj es bZykt djk;k x;kA bykt ds dze esa mldh e`R;w gks xbZ gSA es?kukFk }kjk crk;k x;k dh fnukad 14-5-20 dks jtahr dqekj jfo ds lkFk mlds llqj }kjk le>kus gsrq pdtuSc xkao ij cqyk;k x;k Fkk ogka ij geyksx djhc 2- 00 cts igqps FksA ogk ij jathr ds llqj pUnzdsr jk; ,oa fouksn jk; pdtuSc ds le{k ckr fopkj gksus yxk rks jathr crk;k dh jk/kk dks fdlh yMd+k ls nks&rhu o"kksZa ls xyr laca/k py jgk gS blh ij fouksn jk; xqLlk dj MkVus yxs rFkk llqj cksys dh vc tks gks dksVZ ls gksxkA eq>s iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd bldh iRuh jk/kk dqekjh] llqj puqdsr jk; ,oa fouksn jk;] ds ckr dks ysdj esjk csVk jtahr dqekj jfo tgj [kkdj viuk vkRegR;k dj fy;k gSA esjss csVs jtahr ds foLrj ds fljgkuk ls ,d lqlkbZV uksV feyk gS ftlesa fy[kk gS fd eka] ckcqth] eq>s ekQ fdth,xkA llqjky okyksa dks ugha NksfM;sxk lkFk gh fouksn th pdtuSc okyk dks Hkh rFkk mlij jtahr dk gLrk{kj Hkh gSA lkFk gh ,d Qsl cqd dk lqlkbZV uksV dk Nk;k izfr fn;sA ftlesa D.G.P./D.M./S.P/ bR;kfn dks lacksf/kr gS ftlesa of.kZr gS fd jtahr dh iRuh dk uktk;t laca/k verk dqekj pkpk ds lkyk ds lkFk gS vkxs o.kZu gS fd bl ?kVuk esa puqdsr jk; o gfj jk; xzke jlqyiqj gchc nsljh rFkk fouksn dqekj lqeu (M.E.S) 'kadj jk; xzke pd tSuc] pd fldUnj fcnqij cjkcj dk Hkkxhnkjh gS] bl ?kVuk esa esjs ekrk&firk HkkbZ cgu] HkkHkh cguksbZ lHkh funksZ"k gSA ftlij j.kthr dk gLrk{kj gSA rFkk fnukad 14@5@20 09-50 pm vafdr gSA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA eSa viuk c;ku lqu o le>dj lgh ikdj vius yMd+k /keZohj dqekj ds le{k ,oa eqf[k;k th ifr jktho dqekj jtau flga] rFkk pkpk ijekuna jk; ds le{k viuk cka;s vaxqBk dk fu'kku cuk fn;kA 9. I have also perused the content of the suicide note and for proper adjudication, the same is reproduced hereinafter: ^^eSa iwjs gks"kksgokl ds lkFk ;g Suicide Note fy[k jgk gWwAa eSa vius 5 o"kksZa ds oSokfgr thou esa cckZn gks x;k gwaA eSa ;g HkfyHkkfar tkurk o le>rk gaw fd vkRegR;k xyr gS ijUrq esjs ikl fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fodYi ugha gSA bl d`r dk ftEesokj eSa viuh iRuh ¼jk/kk dqekjh½] llqj ¼pUnzdsr jk;½ rFkk lkl ¼yxuh nsoh½ dks gh ekurk gwaA esjs ikl ,d yM+dk gS rFkk ,d xHkZ esa iy jgk gSA ;s nksuks cPps esjs gh gSA 3 o"kZ igys eq>s ;g Kkr gqvk fd esjh iRuh dk verk dqekj ¼pkpk ds lkyk] jk/kk ds pkpk½ ds lkFk gSA uktk;t lca/ak gSA fQj esjs le>kus cq>kus o lkl&llqj dks lwfpr djus ds i'pkr lcdqN Bhd py jgk Fkk rHkh esjs lkl&llqj Qksu ij jk/kk dks mYVk&lh/kk dgdj esjs o esjs ifjokj ds f[kykQ HkM+dkus yxh ftlls ;s ifjfLFkfr mRiUu gqbZA esjh xyrh flQZ bruh gS fd eSa viuh iRuh dks dHkh&dky xkyh cd nsrk FkkA esjss llqj igys dksydkrk ds gqxyh ftyk esa jgrs FksA os ogka ds iwoZ psvjeSu ¼eukst mik/;k;½ dk djhch ekus tkrs Fks ftudh gR;k gks x;hA rc ls esjs llqj xkao esa jgdj >ksyk Nki MkWDVjh djrs gS tcfd buds ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dk medical certificate ugha gS bruk gh ugh ;s rks eSVªhd ikl Hkh ugha gSA bUgksaus jk/kk ds fookg esa eukst mik/;k; ls 2 yk[k :Ik;s m/kkj fy, Fks og vHkh rd pqdrk ugha fd;sA esjk ekuuk gh ugh vfirq iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd eukst mik/;k; ds eMZj esa esjs llqj dk Hkh gkFk gS ysfdu bUgksus lk{; fNikus ds fy, eye witness cu x;sA vkt fnukad 14-05-2020 dks tc eSa viuh iRuh ds eksckby ij Qksu fd;k rks ekeyk c<+ x;kA fQj le>kSrk djkus ds fy, esjs llqj o muds xkoa ds gh pkpk gfj jk; pdtSuc ¼fcnqiqj½ xkao igqaps tgka fouksn dq0 lqeu ¼iwoZ uke½ us lHkh ds lkeus eq>s tku ls ekjus ds fy, mrkoys gks x;s ysfdu esjs lkFk esjs gh xkoa ds es?kukFk HkS;k lkFk FksA blfy, geyksx ogka ls fdlh izdkj tku cpkdj pys x;sA bl ?kVuk esa pUnzdsr jk; o gfj jk; xzke&jlqyiqj gchc ¼nsljh½ rFkk fouksn dq0 lqeu (MES), 'kadj jk; xzke pdtSuc] pdfldUnj ¼fcnqiqj½ cjkcj dk Hkkxhnkj gSA fouksn dq0 lqeu uke cnydj ijh{kk fn;k gS vkjS mlesa yxHkx 20 o"kZ mez djds u;s izek.k&i= ls MES dk ukSdjh dj jgs gS tcfd 22 lky dk rks mudk csVk gh gSA bl ?kVuk esa esjs ekrk] firk] nksuks HkkbZ] HkkHkh] cgu&cguksbZ lHkh funksZ"k gSa eq>s esjs ekrk&firk ds laifr ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS D;kfsad esjh eka rks ogh gS ijUrq firk Lo0 f'koukFk jk; xzke&e/kkSy ¼egqvk½ FksA tc eSa eka ds xHkZ esa gh 6 eghus dk Fkk rks esjs firk dh e`R;q gks x;hA fQj esjh eka dh 'kknh deZ firk ¼egsUnz jk;½ ls gqvk ftUgksus eq>s i<+k;k fy[kk;k ikyk iks"kkA vr% esjs cPps dk Hkh ;gka dksbZ vf/kdkj fl) ugha gksrk gSA** 10. The viscera report also reveals that the cause of death is due to consumption of Aluminium Phosphide, which commercially known as Celphos, which is a severe gastro- intestinal irritant, which is commonly used as a grain preservative and is highly poisonous. 11. In the case of Mahendra Awase (Supra) , the facts has been taken note of in several paragraphs but it has been concluded in paragraph no. 19 as follows: "19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind." 12. The ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows: " 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 that thing; or (Thirdly)— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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, wilfully 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." 13. The ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows: " 306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 14 . The Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abatement. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 15 . The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 held that the "abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that 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." 16. No doubt, the nature of relationship in matrimony, social and legal obligation arise, which when inter- laid with persistent cruel conduct by the wife, may lead a man to find himself optionless. Of course, it depends on the circumstances of a man, his financial and social status and his general outlook towards life. But, what cannot be ignored is the fact that in the matrimonial relationship both spouses, in sometime, become aware of the others general outlook and the threshold of toleration beyond which the other may not be driven, and if persistently harassed, may adopt fatal options. 17. In the instant case, from the suicide note and the FIR, there are sufficient materials, which show that the deceased was not having good relationship with his wife (petitioner no. 1), who had fallen in company of some other person with whom, she was having illicit relationship. So far as the retraction by the informant is concerned that during the Covid- 19 Pandemic period, the earning of the deceased came to be stalled only shows that the entire allegation levelled against the petitioners don't attract any criminal prosecution, cannot be sustained in light of suicide note, which is the sterling evidence about what drove the man to take his own life. 18. I find that from the beginning of the relationship, the petitioner no. 1 had subjected the deceased to cruelty, which ultimately resulted into suicide and the ingredients of the two sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted against the petitioners, as such, I am not inclined to quash the FIR. 19. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.