Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

In Absence of Direct Evidence of Abetment, Continuation of Proceedings Constitutes Abuse of Legal Process: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR in Suicide Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, quashed the FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2008 under Sections 306/34 IPC concerning the alleged abetment of suicide by Aruna Rani. The Court concluded there was no direct evidence of abetment by the individuals named in the FIR and the suicide note, underscoring the absence of a proximate link or clear mens rea (intention).

Facts and Issues: The FIR, based on Paramjit Kaur's delayed statement, alleged that 11 individuals harassed Aruna Rani, leading to her suicide. The suicide note, written by the deceased, named the individuals, but no direct evidence linked them to her decision. The petitioners, including Ritu Bala and others, sought the quashing of the FIR, citing the absence of elements essential for abetment of suicide as per Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

Legal Requirements of Abetment (Para 11): Citing the Supreme Court's view in Ganguly Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasized the necessity of a clear mens rea for abetment and a direct act leading to the suicide.

Absence of Instigation or Aiding (Para 27): The Court observed no active or direct act by the petitioners that could have led to the suicide, highlighting the lack of a proximate connection.

Evaluation of Evidence (Para 29): The Court found that the FIR's filing, based solely on the suicide note and the names mentioned therein, insufficient to establish the charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Guidelines for Quashing FIR (Para 30): Following the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Court found the case falling within the guideline that allows quashing of FIR when there is an absence of evidence indicating the commission of an offense.

Decision: The Court quashed FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC and all consequent proceedings, allowing the petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC. The decision highlights the necessity of clear mens rea and a direct act for charges of abetment to suicide.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2024

Ritu Bala And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

Latest Legal News