[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
1 MCRC-52772-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52772 of 2025
PRAVEEN KUMAR SHAKYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Singh Parmar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vineet Saxena - Panel Lawyer for the State.
RESERVED ON :- 28/11/2025
DELIVERD ON :- 2/12/2025
ORDER
The present application, under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed
by the applicant - Praveen Kumar for quashment of First Information Report
bearing Crime No.199 of 2024 registered at Police Station Antri, District
Gwalior for the offence under Section 108 of BNS, as well as all judicial
proceedings arising therefrom.
As per prosecution story, informant Devendra Beghal, son of Sultan
Singh Baghel, aged 22 years, resident of Ward No. 08 Aatri, presently
working as Trackman, Railway Sandalpur, appeared at the police station and
lodged an oral report to the effec that on 28.10.2024, at about 12:30 PM,
between pole numbers 1205/05 to 1205/01, a female dead body has been
found. This information was given to the Station Master, Sandalpur, who
informed that the said woman had died after being hit by Train No.12650.
The police reached the spot, and from identification made by the residents of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
2 MCRC-52772-2025
Aantri, it was found that the deceased was Smt. Rita, wife of Pankaj Rajak,
aged 40 years, resident of Ward No. 13. Upon this information, Merg
No.27/24 under Section 194 BNSS was registered and inquiry was initiated.
During the merg inquiry, statements of the deceased's husband Pankaj (39
years), son Piyush (18 years), daughter Himanshi, and father-in-law
Purusottam (68 years), residents of Qazi Mohalla, Aantari, were recorded. In
their statements, they deposed that the accused/Praveen Shakya had, in
January-February 2024, taken ₹4,25,000 from the deceased Rita and her
husband Pankaj on the pretext of securing a government job for Pankaj in the
Health Department and assured that employment would be provided by June
2024. However, even by June 2024, no job was provided. When the
deceased and her husband demanded their money back, the accused kept
delaying and avoiding repayment. On 26.10.2024, the deceased Rita along
with her son Piyush went to the house of accused/Praveen Shakya to demand
their money, where the accused abused them verbally and drove them away.
When the deceased returned home, the accused again called her on phone,
used abusive language, and stated that he would not return the money. Due to
this continuous harassment, humiliation, and mental torture, the deceased
became deeply distressed. As a result, on 28.10.2024, the deceased went to
the railway track near Aantari and committed suicide by jumping in front of
a train. From the merg inquiry, the involvement of the accused in abetting
the suicide was found to be established, attracting the offence under Section
108 BNSS.
Learned counsel for the applicant had submitted before this Court that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
3 MCRC-52772-2025
the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter, which arises
purely out of a civil and monetary dispute between the deceased's family and
the applicant. Even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their
face value, they do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment of
suicide under Section 108 of the BNSS. The entire prosecution case rests
solely on the statements of the deceased's family members recorded during
the merg inquiry, which themselves indicate that the dispute pertains to an
alleged monetary transaction relating to facilitation of employment. The
dispute, even if assumed to be true, remains civil in nature and cannot be
converted into a criminal allegation of instigation or abetment of suicide.
It was further submitted that the prosecution story discloses no
proximate, direct, positive or intentional act of instigation by the applicant,
nor any mens rea to provoke or compel the deceased to take the drastic step
of suicide. Mere monetary disputes, delay in repayment, or verbal
altercations--even if assumed--do not constitute abetment under settled law.
The alleged verbal exchange of 26.10.2024 or any subsequent telephonic
conversation falls far short of the statutory requirements of continuity,
intensity or intentional incitement required under Section 108 BNSS. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that casual quarrels or routine
harassment, without a deliberate act of instigation, cannot amount to
abetment of suicide.
It was further submitted that there is further an unexplained and
substantial delay in making allegations against the applicant and neither the
deceased nor her family members ever lodged any complaint against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
4 MCRC-52772-2025
applicant at any stage prior to the incident. The version introduced during the
merg inquiry is clearly an afterthought, fabricated solely to implicate the
applicant after the unfortunate death. There is no suicide note, no
independent witness, and no material on record establishing any causal
connection between the applicant's conduct and the deceased's decision to
take her life. The prosecution rests entirely on hearsay statements of
interested witnesses, which cannot legally sustain a charge of abetment.
It was further submitted that the FIR itself is false, fabricated and
lodged with malicious intent and according to the Merg report filed by the
informant, Devendra Baghel, Trackman, Railway Sandalpur, the deceased
died due to accidental collision with a train and not by intentionally placing
herself before it. The incident occurred on 28.10.2024, yet the FIR was
lodged nearly one month later, manifestly with the objective of unlawful
monetary extraction from the applicant. The police had mechanically
recorded statements of the deceased's relatives and, based solely on them,
invoked Section 108 BNSS, despite the deceased never having made any
direct or indirect allegation of instigation or harassment by the applicant. At
its highest, the prosecution alleges a financial dispute, and the deceased may
have felt distressed on account of money not being returned. However, there
is no material to show that the applicant ever instigated, aided, encouraged or
conspired with the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of mens rea
and a positive act of instigation, the penal provisions of Section 108 BNSS
cannot be invoked. The offence of abetment of suicide requires deliberate
and active participation that directly leads to the commission of the act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
5 MCRC-52772-2025
Emotional distress caused by financial issues or the deceased's own
psychological vulnerability cannot impose criminal liability on the applicant.
It was further submitted that it is well settled that abetment may occur
through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, but such abetment must
involve active and conscious participation before the act. In Smt. Radha v.
State of M.P., reported in 2008 ILR MP 3333, this Court held that abetment
of suicide requires a sufficiently active role amounting to instigation or
intentional assistance, and mere allegations or general conduct do not satisfy
the legal threshold. In the present case, the deceased allegedly felt upset
about money which the applicant did not take; even otherwise, such a
financial dispute cannot amount to abetment. The implication of the
applicant is clearly malicious and aimed at harassment and extortion.
Similarly, in the matter of Narendra Sharma v. State of Madhya
Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C.No. 7032 of 2025, decided on 16.09.2025, this
Court held that where allegations relate merely to a financial dispute and lack
evidence of instigation, provocation or harassment, continuation of criminal
proceedings constitutes abuse of process. The present matter stands on an
identical footing. Intentional instigation and active participation are the
essence of the offence under Section 108 BNSS. Without evidence of
sustained cruelty, harassment or conduct directly contributing to suicide, it
cannot be presumed that the applicant instigated the deceased. Where the
deceased takes such step due to psychological weakness, illness or emotional
sensitivity, the accused cannot be held criminally liable.
In these circumstances, the FIR registered under Section 108(3)(5)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
6 MCRC-52772-2025
BNSS does not, even prima facie, disclose the commission of any offence
against the applicant, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are
wholly absent, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of
judicial process. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present application be
allowed and the FIR in Crime No.199/2024 registered at Police Station
Aantari, District Gwalior, under Section 108 BNSS, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor/Panel Lawyer for the State has
opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that the
allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the
commission of an offence under Section 108 BNSS, and therefore the
applicant is not entitled to quashing. The statements of the deceased's
husband, children and other witnesses reveal that the applicant took a
substantial amount of money from the deceased's family on the pretext of
securing employment, and thereafter repeatedly refused to return the amount
while subjecting the deceased to humiliation, abuse and threats. The specific
incident of 26.10.2024, where the deceased was allegedly insulted at the
applicant's residence, coupled with subsequent abusive calls, demonstrates
harassment which is alleged to have had a direct impact on the deceased's
mental state. These facts constitute sufficient prima facie material to proceed
against the applicant, and such matters cannot be adjudicated or tested in a
petition seeking quashing at a preliminary stage.
It is further submitted that the absence of a suicide note or the
existence of delay in lodging the FIR does not dilute the gravity of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
7 MCRC-52772-2025
allegations, as abetment can be established through oral and circumstantial
evidence. Whether the death was accidental or suicidal, and whether the
applicant's conduct had a proximate link with the deceased's death, are
matters requiring thorough trial and appreciation of evidence. At this stage,
the Court is only required to examine if the allegations disclose an offence;
the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case cannot be assessed in a
petition under Section 528 BNSS. Since the investigation has unearthed
material raising serious triable issues, the continuation of proceedings cannot
be termed an abuse of process. Hence, the applicant's prayer for quashing
deserves to be rejected
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the FIR,
taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of Section 306 IPC/108 of
BNSS.
Sections 306 and 107 IPC/108 and 45 of BNSS are reproduced below
for ready reference:
"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.
It must be read with Section 107 of IPC which
explains the meaning of Abetment, which reads as:
107. Abetment of a thing-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
8 MCRC-52772-2025
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.
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 facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be
either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a
thing'. When these three criteria to Section 306 IPC/108 BNS apply, it
means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide
or was engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit
suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit
suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
9 MCRC-52772-2025
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 in Para 20 has
held as under:
"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. A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation."
The ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. were
interpreted by Apex Court in Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 in the following
manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has
been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
10 MCRC-52772-2025
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is
important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by
the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a
clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should
put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no
other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a
plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a
mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another
person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under
Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the
positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another
person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part
of the accused person being apparent from the face of the
record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be
sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or
indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the
deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."
16. Further in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Laxmi Das vs. State of West Bengal and another, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 120; in paras 8, 9 and 13, it has been held as under:
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
11 MCRC-52772-2025
it is clear that there must be (i) direct or undefined indirect
instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of
suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the
judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde Vs. State of of
Maharashtra,, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, wherein this
Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and
observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would
indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an
engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'.
When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it
means that the accused must have encouraged the
person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with
others to encourage the person to commit suicide or
acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to
commit suicide...."
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial pronouncements,
we are of the view that there is no proximate link between
the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant
and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
12 MCRC-52772-2025
collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against
the appellant. Theundefined appellant has not played any
active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the
complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as
recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation
suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the
commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the
appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at
any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
Applying the above settled principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that the allegations made against the applicant do not satisfy
the foundational requirements of the offence under Section 108 of the BNSS,
as the records reveal that the dispute between the parties essentially arises
out of an alleged monetary transaction relating to facilitation of employment,
which, even if taken at its highest, constitutes a civil dispute. The prosecution
has not placed any material indicating any overt act, proximate conduct, or
active participation by the applicant which could be construed as instigation,
intentional aid, or abetment compelling the deceased to take the extreme
step. Furthermore, the deceased did not leave behind any suicide note, nor
had she lodged any complaint against the applicant during her lifetime and
the allegations surfaced only after the death of the deceased, and statements
relied upon by the prosecution are exclusively of interested family members
without any independent corroboration. The delay of almost one month in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
13 MCRC-52772-2025
lodging the FIR is neither satisfactorily explained nor consistent with the
natural conduct expected in such circumstances. Moreover, the Merg report
itself records that the deceased died due to collision with a train, and the
question whether the death was suicidal or accidental is itself doubtful and
disputed. In such a scenario, fastening criminal liability for abetment of
suicide upon the applicant, without cogent material demonstrating mens rea
or an active role, would be wholly unwarranted.
It is a settled legal position that the extraordinary power of the Court
under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised where the allegations do not
disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of judicial process. The present case
squarely fits within those parameters. The prosecution material, even if
accepted at face value, does not constitute the offence alleged, and allowing
the criminal proceedings to continue would subject the applicant to undue
harassment and would amount to permitting misuse of the criminal justice
system.
In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the present
case warrants interference under Section 528 BNSS. The application is
accordingly allowed. The FIR registered as Crime No. 199/2024 at Police
Station Aantari, District Gwalior, for the offence under Section 108 BNSS,
along with all proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30999
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a
14 MCRC-52772-2025
pwn*
49f265f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164be
eed89153191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.12.03 11:32:41 +05'30'
