[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mr. Vikranth Hedeu vs State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12677 OF 2024
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between :
Mr. Vikranth Hedeu
... Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana
Rep by its Public Prosecutor, PS Miyapurm High Court at
Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
I have heard Mr. Thomas George, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1-State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking
quashment of the charge sheet in S.C. No. 576 of 2024 pending on the
file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at
Kukatpally. The petitioner is the sole accused, charged for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner/accused and
the deceased were colleagues, and their acquaintance developed into
a personal relationship. It is alleged that the petitioner proposed love to
the deceased. On 20.09.2019, during a farewell party, the deceased
allegedly slipped and sustained an injury to her chin. On the following
day, i.e., 21.09.2019, the petitioner is stated to have taken her to the
hospital for treatment and later dropped her at her apartment. It is
further alleged that, during a conversation between the petitioner and
the deceased, which was purportedly overheard, the petitioner stated:
"Go and do whatever you want; die if you want, but I want to live with
my family." Thereafter, the deceased returned to her flat and committed
suicide by hanging.
3.2. Based on a complaint lodged by the decease's father/L.W.1, a
case in Crime No. 305 of 2019 was registered for the offence under
Section 306 IPC, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet
came to be filed.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations
made against the petitioner are wholly devoid of merit and do not
constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. It is contended that even
if the entire material collected during the investigation, including the
statements of the parents of the deceased, the owner, and the
neighbour of the flat, is taken at face value, the essential ingredients of
Section 306 IPC are not made out. It is further contended that the
alleged statement attributed to the petitioner is not corroborated by any
witness, and the entire case rests on hearsay evidence. He further
submits that, as held in a catena of judgments, mere utterance of
words, without any proximate act or intention to instigate the
commission of suicide, would not attract the offence under Section 306
IPC.
4.2. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ku. Pooja Chopra v. State
of Chhattisgarh (2023 SCC OnLine Chh 5411) and Vaibhav v. State of
Maharashtra (2025 HC-NAG 424), wherein it has been held that for
constituting abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, there
must be a clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation or aid, and in
the absence of such material, prosecution under Section 306 IPC is
unsustainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceedings be
quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that
the allegations regarding the relationship between the petitioner and
the deceased, and the circumstances leading to the suicide, involve
disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only upon a full -
fledged trial. However, it is fairly submitted that the statements of the
witnesses do not specifically refer to the alleged statement said to have
been made by the petitioner on 21.09.2019, as mentioned in the
charge-sheet.
6. I have perused the material available on record.
7. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he
abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. A perusal of the
statements of L.Ws. 1 to 4, namely, the parents of the deceased, the
owner, and the neighbor of the flat, reveals that their statements are
general in nature and largely based on what they came to know after
the incident. The statements of L.Ws. 5 to 7 are also confined to post-
occurrence circumstances. Thus, the material collected during the
course of investigation is predominantly hearsay in nature.
Significantly, the prosecution has failed to place any material to
substantiate the specific allegation that the petitioner uttered the words
attributed to him immediately prior to the incident. None of the
witnesses have spoken about the said alleged statement.
8. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 107 IPC, which
defines "abetment." To constitute abetment, there must be (i)
instigation, or (ii) conspiracy, or (iii) intentional aiding of the act. The
element of mens rea and a proximate nexus between the act of the
accused and the commission of suicide are essential requirements.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gurcharan Singh v. State of
Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 has held that mere harassment or casual
remarks, absent a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, would
not constitute abetment of suicide. It has been further held that there
must be a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of
suicide, and the act complained of must have a proximate link with the
occurrence.
10. In the instant case, in the absence of any material
demonstrating instigation, intentional aid, or any positive act on the part
of the petitioner which had a direct nexus with the commission of
suicide, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not satisfied.
The prosecution case rests merely on unsubstantiated allegations
without any supporting evidence.
11. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding
to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) are required to be exercised to prevent such
abuse and to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner has made out a fit case for
interference.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings in S.C. No. 576 of 2024 pending on the file of the VI
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally,
against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 25.03.2026
MRKR
