[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Crl. OP(MD).No.744 of 2025
and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.504 & 507 of 2025
1.Lakshmanan
2.Kaman (Selvaraj) ....Petitioners
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by Inspector of Police
Chinnalapatti Police Station
Dindigul District
Crime No.97 of 2022
2.Santhi ....Respondents
Prayer:This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the
records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in P.R.C.No.11 of 2024
on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistate, Athoor and quash
the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondents :Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
:Mr.V.Saravanakumar for R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the accused persons in P.R.C.No.
11 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor
seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein the petitioners are alleged to have
committed an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C
2.A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the husband of the defacto
complainant and the petitioners herein were running a joint business of
undertaking construction work. The accused persons are alleged to have
insisted the husband of the defacto complainant to repay the loan. On
19.07.2022, the accused persons are said to have come to the house of the
deceased and threatened him to pay the balance amount. It is alleged that they
have uttered “ in case if he is not able to repay the money, why do you alive,
go and die”. Thereafter, the defacto complainant's husband is said to have
committed suicide at about 6.00 p.m on 25.07.2022 in a construction site
which is not connected to the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
there was no immediate proximity for the alleged incident dated 19.07.2022
and the death of the defacto complainant's husband on 25.07.2022. That
apart, there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to abet the deceased
person to commit suicide. They were only insisting for repayment of the
money which are borrowed by the defacto complainant's husband. He had
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
also relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.20781 of 2021
( Elaikadi Saravanan @ Pushpa Raja Vs. The State, rep. by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District)
dated 06.01.2022 wherein this Court was pleased to quash the F.I.R on the
ground that the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C have not been made after
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent police submitted that the defacto complainant's husband
has executed a written suicide note by hand and that reveals that the
petitioners have insisted for repayment of the loan and they have uttered
obscene words which abetted the defacto complainant's husband to commit
suicide.
5.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
6.A careful perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the accused persons
are said to have insisted the deceased to repay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which
he is said have borrowed from the petitioners. On 19.07.2022, it is alleged
that they have uttered obscene words and said that “in case if he is not able
to repay the money, why do you alive, go and die”. Thereafter, the deceased
committed suicide after six days namely 25.07.2022. Therefore, it is clear that
there is no proximity between the incident that is said to have taken placed on
19.07.2022 and the date of occurrence namely 25.07.2022.
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
7.This Court had passed orders in Crl.OP(MD).No.20781 of 2021
dated 06.01.2022 wherein this Court has relied upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 are extracted as follows:
“8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner even according to the prosecution case, while the
suicide took place on 14.09.2021, the coercive pressure exerted by
the petitioner is alleged to have taken place ten days earlier. Thus
there was no immediate abetment for committing suicide. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision made in Crl.A.No.93 of 2019
dated 18.01.2019 (Rajesh Vs State of Haryana) held as follows:
8.Conviction Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code
is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the Accused, which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a
case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code,
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by
an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the
said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before
he could be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. (See
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707).
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
9.The term instigation Under Section 107 Indian Penal Code has
been explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367) as follows:
“16.Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in
Ramesh Kumar case [MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9
SCC 618: 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1088], R.C. Lahoti, J. (as
His Lordship then was) said that 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in
a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be
instigation.
17.Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage the doing of an act by the other by
"goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates
someone into action; provoke to action or
reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts"
see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
10.Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any
intention cannot be termed as instigation.(See Praveen Pradhan
Vs. State of Uttaranchal: (2012 9 SCC 734)
11.We are of the opinion that the evidence on record does not
warrant conviction of the Appellant under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code. There is no proximity between Panchayat held in
September, 2001 and the suicide committed by Arvind on
23.02.2002. The incident of slapping by the appellant in September,
2001 cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for
instigating the deceased to commit suicide. As the allegations
against all the three accused are similar, the High Court ought not
to have convicted the Appellant after acquitting the other two
accused.”
9.The accused can be prosecuted for the offence under Section
306 IPC if there are prima facie materials to show that the accused had
an intention that the victim should die. In the case on hand, there is
absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused entertained such
a intention or carried out any act with that object in view. There has
been no harassment or positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused. Since the elementary ingredients
of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C are absent in this case, the
continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner will
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
constitute an abuse of legal process.”
8.The facts of the said judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case. The charge sheet in PRC.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor, is hereby quashed and this
Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.03.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Athoor
2.The Inspector of Police
Chinnalapatti Police Station
Dindigul District
Crime No.97 of 2022
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.504 & 507 of 2025
17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 12:00:13 pm )
