Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 13 (MAD)

Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu

2026-01-02

L.VICTORIA GOWRI

body2026
ORDER : L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Preface: This Criminal Original Petition invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of the prosecution in S.C.No.393 of 2025, where the petitioner stands arrayed as A2 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 306 IPC (corresponding to Sections 296 and 108 BNS, as stated). 2. The petitioner herein is the 2nd Accused in S.C.No.393 of 2025. The prosecution stems from the allegation that the deceased, husband of A1, ended his life by consuming poison on 03.08.2023, allegedly unable to bear humiliation and distress said to have been caused by A1, and the prosecution attempts to place the petitioner (A2) in the narrative by projecting an “illicit relationship” between A1 and A2. Case of the prosecution: 3. The case of the prosecution, as reflected in the complaint, FIR and the final report, in substance, is that, the deceased married A1. It is alleged that A1 developed an illicit relationship with A2. Despite advice by family elders, A1 allegedly left the matrimonial home and stayed at her maternal home at the instance of her elder brother A3. 4. It is further alleged that, when the deceased went to A1 and pleaded with her to return, A1 allegedly abused him in filthy language and refused to join him. Thereafter, the deceased, allegedly unable to bear humiliation and distress, consumed poison and died. On these allegations, Crime No.365 of 2023 was registered and the final report came to be filed, ultimately resulting in committal and numbering as S.C.No.393 of 2025 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli. Submissions: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the continuation of the prosecution, submitted broadly as follows: (i) The FIR and final report do not disclose the foundational ingredient of “abetment”, namely instigation / intentional aiding / conspiracy, as contemplated under Section 107 IPC, to attract Section 306 IPC. The allegations are vague and omnibus, at best, they speak of marital discord between the deceased and A1. (ii) The petitioner was not present at the scene. He is stated to be a Government bus driver and, as per duty particulars relied upon by him, he was on continuous official duty during the relevant period; the allegation of active participation is absent. (ii) The petitioner was not present at the scene. He is stated to be a Government bus driver and, as per duty particulars relied upon by him, he was on continuous official duty during the relevant period; the allegation of active participation is absent. (iii) No suicide note, dying declaration, contemporaneous electronic material, or proximate conduct attributable to A2 is shown; suspicion about an “illicit relationship” is legally insufficient to constitute abetment. (iv) The petitioner further pleaded that the dispute has a strong civil/property undertone and according to him, the deceased’s distress was rooted in alleged property transactions and intra-family conduct, and the criminal case is projected to discredit A1 and to push her out of inheritance claims. (v) It was also pointed out that the petitioner’s discharge petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court. However, during that hearing, the Court allegedly recorded that certain documents such as Accident Register/medical records were not filed and that there were defects/limitations in investigation. The dismissal of discharge, it was submitted, does not bar this Court from examining whether the continuation of prosecution against A2 is an abuse of process. (vi) Crucially, it was submitted that this very Court has already quashed the proceedings arising out of the same PRC/Sessions committal insofar as A3 is concerned, on the reasoning that mere humiliating words or statements like “go and die”, uttered in anger or in a quarrel, without clear intention to drive the victim to suicide, do not constitute abetment; and the petitioner seeks parity on the same set of allegations. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant opposed the petition and submitted in substance: (i) The deceased died by suicide and the prosecution material, taken as a whole, indicates that he was subjected to humiliation and mental distress; the role of A2 cannot be minutely assessed in a petition for quashment. (ii) The prosecution asserts that the alleged illicit relationship forms the backdrop for the mental state of the deceased, and such matters ought to be tested in trial. (iii) The discharge having been dismissed, the petitioner ought not to be permitted to re-agitate factual aspects. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. Point for consideration: 8. (iii) The discharge having been dismissed, the petitioner ought not to be permitted to re-agitate factual aspects. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. Point for consideration: 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the allegations and materials in the final report, even if accepted at face value in entirety, disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 294(b) and 306 IPC as against the petitioner/A2, and whether continuation of the prosecution against A2 would amount to abuse of process warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS? Analysis: 9. The power under Section 528 BNSS is to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. While a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not undertaken at this stage, the Court is not powerless where the allegations, taken at their highest, do not constitute the offence alleged or where the prosecution is patently attended with mala fides or is otherwise an abuse of process. 10. The offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out by mere proof of suicide and a prior quarrel or strained relationship. The prosecution must prima facie disclose abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, i.e., instigation, or intentional aid, or conspiracy, coupled with the requisite mens rea, and there must be a direct and proximate link between the alleged conduct of the accused and the suicide. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that words uttered in anger, ordinary quarrels, emotional exchanges, and generalized allegations of harassment, without a clear intention to push the deceased into taking the extreme step, do not satisfy the legal threshold of abetment. The law also insists on a live nexus between the conduct and the suicide and the prosecution cannot rest on conjectures and presumptions alone. 12. Tested on the above touchstone, the prosecution story, in its core, attributes the immediate provocation (as pleaded) to an interaction between the deceased and A1, where A1 allegedly refused reconciliation and abused him. Even in that narrative, the petitioner/A2 is not attributed any specific act of instigation at or about the time of occurrence. 13. The allegation that A1 had an illicit relationship with A2, even if assumed to be true only for the sake of argument, is at best a background circumstance. Even in that narrative, the petitioner/A2 is not attributed any specific act of instigation at or about the time of occurrence. 13. The allegation that A1 had an illicit relationship with A2, even if assumed to be true only for the sake of argument, is at best a background circumstance. A background circumstance cannot, by itself, substitute the statutory requirement of instigation/intentional aid by A2, unless the final report also discloses specific, proximate and intentional acts by A2 which left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. 14. In the case on hand, the pleadings and materials placed before this Court including the final report, on the face of it, emphasise the absence of: (i) suicide note, (ii) dying declaration, (iii) direct message/call record with legal admissibility shown at this stage, and (iv) a particular act attributed to A2 immediately preceding the suicide that can be treated as instigation. The prosecution version, insofar as A2 is concerned, is therefore thin and inferential. 15. This Court is conscious that mens rea and causation are often matters of inference, however, in prosecutions under Section 306 IPC, the inference must arise from clear factual substratum indicating intentional encouragement or active aid. A prosecution cannot be permitted to continue merely because there was a perceived “motive narrative” or a family suspicion, without the basic legal ingredients. 16. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in the very same committal proceedings, this Court has already quashed the prosecution insofar as A3 is concerned, holding that humiliating words and exchanges, absent overwhelming material showing intention to drive the victim to suicide, would not attract Section 306 IPC, particularly when the alleged words are in the nature of anger-driven utterances. 17. Without traversing beyond permissible limits at this stage, this Court notes that the prosecution’s foundational theory remains the same. If the allegations against one of the accused, resting substantially on “humiliation” and “goading” without demonstrable intention and proximate link, were found legally insufficient to sustain Section 306 IPC, the continuation of the same prosecution on similar foundational allegations against A2, without a distinct and stronger factual attribution, would result in uneven application of the same legal yardstick. 18. As regards Section 294(b) IPC, the allegation must disclose the essential ingredients, including the utterance of obscene words in or near a public place, causing annoyance to others. 18. As regards Section 294(b) IPC, the allegation must disclose the essential ingredients, including the utterance of obscene words in or near a public place, causing annoyance to others. If the final report does not disclose the necessary particulars and is pressed as a tag-along section, it cannot survive independently merely to keep the prosecution alive, in the absence of any independent/eye witnesses. 19. The fact that a discharge petition was dismissed does not, by itself, foreclose the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Where the continuation of prosecution itself would amount to abuse of process, or where the material does not disclose the offence alleged, this Court can still interfere to prevent miscarriage of justice. 20. On an overall consideration of the prosecution allegations as they stand against A2, this Court is of the view that the essential ingredients of Sections 294(b) and 306 IPC are not prima facie made out against the petitioner/A2. The prosecution against A2 rests substantially on conjectural inferences flowing from an alleged relationship, without specific acts constituting instigation/intentional aid and without a proximate causal link. 21. Permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner/A2, in such circumstances, would amount to abuse of process of law and would cause unwarranted prejudice. 22. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.393 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, arising out of Crime No.365 of 2023, are quashed insofar as the petitioner / A2 is concerned. 23. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. If any coercive process is pending against the petitioner/A2 in the above Sessions Case, the same shall stand recalled/cancelled, subject to due intimation to the learned Trial Court.