Even Taking the Allegations at Face Value, They Would Not Amount to Instigating the Deceased to Commit Suicide: Supreme Court Affirms No Case Made Out Under Section 306 IPC

In a judgment delivered on March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India partially allowed the appeal of a widow challenging the quashing of a criminal case registered against her husband’s former business partners. In R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka & Others, the Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order to the extent it quashed cheating charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but upheld the High Court’s decision quashing proceedings under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).

Calling the High Court’s treatment of the cheating charges “casual and cursory,” the Court held: “The learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC… the least that was expected was to give reasons as to why the material collected… was not sufficient.”

At the same time, the Court declined to revive the abetment of suicide charge, noting: “Even taking the allegations at face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide.”

The appellant, R. Shashirekha, lost her husband to suicide on April 14, 2024. He was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions, alongside respondents 2 and 3, with respondent 4 acting as the company’s manager. Initially, police treated the death as an unnatural death under Section 174 CrPC and closed the case after filing an Unnatural Death Report. 

However, over a month later, on May 22, 2024, the appellant lodged an FIR (Crime Case No. 172 of 2024), alleging that she discovered a handwritten suicide note left behind by her husband, revealing a massive financial betrayal. 

According to the FIR, the note stated that the deceased had been cheated of Rs. 60 crore by his partners, who had forged his signature on blank cheques and documents, misappropriated funds, and misrepresented the financial status of the company. It also alleged harassment and blackmail, citing continuous phone calls from the accused that drove the deceased into a state of distress in the days leading up to his death.

 The FIR invoked Sections 306, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and an investigation was launched. However, respondents 2 to 4 approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC, and the FIR was quashed in its entirety on September 3, 2024.

While the appellant argued that the suicide note and surrounding facts made out a clear case of abetment, the Supreme Court disagreed. Citing its decision in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 1020), the bench, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, emphasized the requirement of proximity between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide.

“There must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation… and the commission of suicide. A gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus.”

The Court noted the 39-day delay in filing the FIR and questioned why, if her husband had shown signs of distress and received troubling phone calls, the appellant did not report the matter immediately. It remarked: “It is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court had not erred in quashing the Section 306 IPC charge. 

However, the Court took serious exception to the High Court’s dismissal of the cheating charge under Section 420 IPC without detailed reasoning. The High Court had simply noted that if any deception had occurred, it was for the deceased to have acted during his lifetime.

 The Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating:  “The learned Single Judge has acted in a casual and cursory manner… If he was of the view that even investigation papers did not constitute an offence, the least that was expected was to give reasons.” 

The Court emphasized that the investigating agency had collected sufficient material during the probe, and the widow, as the survivor of the deceased’s estate, had the right to pursue the complaint.

 It held: “We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge… has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC.”

The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between mere suspicion of abetment and provable instigation, reiterating that abetment to suicide requires a proximate, active role. However, it also firmly defended the complainant’s right to pursue charges of cheating and forgery, rejecting the High Court’s reasoning as superficial. 

In allowing the appeal in part, the Court ruled: “The learned trial court would proceed further in accordance with law insofar as the case under Section 420 of IPC is concerned.”

It clarified that the accused may still seek discharge, which would be considered independently by the trial court.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2025