Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Tragic Love Affair Case

“The law does not punish failed relationships or heartbreak unless elements of a cognizable offence are clearly made out.” - Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment quashed an FIR registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment to suicide. The case revolved around the tragic suicide of a young woman, allegedly prompted by emotional distress after the appellant, who was in a romantic relationship with the deceased, refused to marry her. The Court observed that mere refusal to marry—even if emotionally distressing—does not by itself constitute instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, and that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and a “travesty of justice.”

"No Active Act or Mens Rea to Instigate Suicide": SC Clarifies Scope of Abetment Under Section 306 IPC

The appeal arose from a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision dated l7 March 2025, in CRM-M No. 4l256 of 20l8, where the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of FIR No. 273/20l6 registered with Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar. The FIR accused the appellant of mentally and physically exploiting the deceased and instigating her suicide after reneging on a promise to marry.

The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s mother on 7 November 20l6, the day after the incident, narrating that her daughter had been in a serious relationship with Yadwinder Singh, a government advocate. She alleged that he had promised to marry her daughter but later backed out, which led to her daughter’s suicide by consuming poison.

Notably, a supplementary statement recorded two days later introduced significant additions, claiming that the deceased had been physically exploited, was emotionally manipulated, and had been directly told by the appellant to “do whatever you want” when she threatened suicide. The statement also alleged that the deceased had informed her mother and cousin that she was being harassed and had contacted the appellant’s father as well, who showed indifference.

The deceased, Pardeep Kaur, was a government advocate posted in Amritsar. The FIR narrated that she had a close relationship with the appellant, Yadwinder Singh, who had even visited the family and expressed intent to marry her in 20l5. The mother of the deceased claimed that the refusal to marry came after initial commitments, resulting in emotional devastation that allegedly triggered the suicide.

The initial FIR focused primarily on the emotional betrayal due to refusal to marry. However, the supplementary statement—made after consultation and reflection—introduced more serious allegations, including mental and physical exploitation and possession of phone call recordings and messages.

The High Court had refused to quash the FIR, prompting the appellant to move the Supreme Court.

The key legal question was whether the facts alleged in the FIR, as supplemented, established the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, considering the legal definition under Section l07 IPC, which defines "abetment" as:

“Instigating any person to do that thing; or engaging in a conspiracy; or intentionally aiding by act or omission.”

The Court emphasized that to constitute abetment, there must be a clear and proximate act of instigation or direct involvement that pushed the deceased to commit suicide.

Referring to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (200l) 9 SCC 6l8, and S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (20l0) l2 SCC l90, the Bench reiterated that:

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing an act. Without a positive act, conviction cannot be sustained.”

The Court further noted that the supplementary statement was a clear improvement over the original FIR, made after two days, and thus lacked spontaneity and reliability:

“It is apparent... that she improved upon her earlier version as narrated in the FIR and alleged mental and physical exploitation... Such improvements create doubt and cannot solely be relied upon to prosecute for abetment of suicide.”

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan dissected the elements required for prosecution under Section 306 IPC and found that none of the allegations amounted to a direct or proximate cause that could be legally defined as ‘instigation’ under Section l07 IPC.

The Court observed:

“Even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”

“Mere refusal to marry, even if true by itself, would not amount to instigation as explained under Section l07 of the IPC.”

On mens rea, the Court stated there was no intention on the part of the appellant to provoke or instigate suicide:

“The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act, namely suicide... The mental process required for abetment (mens rea) was absent.”

Concluding that no prima facie case for abetment was made out, the Court held:

“We are of the view that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the evidence on record would be nothing short of travesty of justice. Trial would be an empty formality.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 273 of 20l6 dated 07.ll.20l6 and all criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 728 of 20l8 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence that emotional distress arising from personal relationships, including refusal to marry, cannot automatically be equated with criminal instigation. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in filtering emotional narratives through the prism of legal thresholds, thereby preventing misuse of criminal law in matters that, though tragic, do not meet the legal requirements for prosecution.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025