Uttarakhand High Court
Navdeep Singh Maan And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 15 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
15th May, 2025
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1823 OF 2021
Navdeep Singh Maan and Others ...Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants : Mr Vivek Pathak, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A..
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauahn,
No. 2 Advocate.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present case arises from Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 1823 of 2021 filed under Section 482 CrPC,
seeking quashing of Chargesheet No. 01/2021 dated
22.01.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 0411 of 2020 under
Sections 306, 323, 504, and 34 IPC, registered at Police
Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, along with the
cognisance order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
2. The applicants are: (i) Navdeep Singh Maan
(Applicant No. 1), (ii) Sharanjit (his mother) (Applicant No. 2),
(iii) Gurpreet Maan (his wife) (Applicant No. 3), (iv) Harpreet
Dhillon (sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2) (Applicant No. 4),
and (v) Sarbjeet Singh Dhillon (brother-in-law of Respondent
No. 2) (Applicant No. 5). The respondents are: (i) State of
Uttarakhand (Respondent No. 1) and (ii) Gitika Maan (wife of
Late Pradeep Maan) (Respondent No. 2).
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
3. The case concerns the suicide of Late Pradeep
Maan, elder brother of Applicant No. 1 and son of Applicant No.
2. The family jointly owned businesses, including 'Hotel Maan'
and a mobile communication venture, which Pradeep primarily
managed. He was found hanging in his shop on 14.07.2020,
following which his wife (Respondent No. 2) lodged FIR No.
0411 under Sections 306, 323, 504, and 34 IPC.
4. A charge-sheet (No. 01/2021) was filed on
22.01.2021, and cognisance was taken on 09.03.2021. The
applicants contend that the FIR and chargesheet are
unfounded, lacking any material evidence of abetment under
Section 306 IPC. They also assert that the underlying dispute
is civil in nature and the suicide note does not satisfy the legal
criteria for abetment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
Late Pradeep Maan and Respondent No. 2, Gitika Maan, had
been married for about 14 years but had no children. It was
also submitted that the applicants belong to a closely-knit
family.
7. It was argued that 'Hotel Maan' was jointly
purchased in the names of Applicant No. 1 and Late Pradeep
Maan from the proceeds of ancestral land. However, it was
solely managed and operated by the deceased, who enjoyed
its income exclusively.
8. Although a joint bank account existed in the names
of Applicant No. 1 and the deceased, learned counsel
submitted that only the latter operated it. Late Pradeep Maan
also independently ran separate ventures in travel and mobile
communications.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
9. It was further contended that Applicant No. 1
provided financial assistance to the deceased during periods of
financial distress. Counsel referred to car loan instalments for a
vehicle purchased by the deceased, which were paid from
Applicant No. 1's account.
10. Learned counsel submitted that Applicants No. 1
and 2 had travelled to Canada in early 2020 and were delayed
in returning due to the COVID-19 lockdown. During their
absence, arrangements made for the care of Applicant No. 1's
children allegedly met with resistance from the deceased,
necessitating police involvement. A Sale Deed from 2014,
evidencing joint ownership of family assets, was placed on
record.
11. The applicants contend that the FIR registered
against them does not disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence. They argue that even if the allegations in
the FIR are assumed to be true, the offence under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code (abetment to suicide) is not made out
as it requires "something more than just usual pickering."
Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the
Supreme Court judgment in Geo Varghese v. The State of
Rajasthan & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021,
more specifically paragraph 22,wherein the court observed: -
"22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment
of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an
allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations
of harassment of the deceased by another person would
not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of
such actions on the part of the accused which compelled
the commission of suicide. Further, if the person
committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the
extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to
hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus,
what is required is an examination of every case on its
own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration
the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have
bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the
psyche of the deceased."
12. The learned counsel further argues on the issue of
mens rea, placing reliance on S.S. Chheena v Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Another (2010) 12 SCC 190, where the court
opines that while suicide by itself is not an offence, an attempt
to commit suicide is an offence under section 309 of the IPC.
The learned counsel referred to various other judgements
before the court, passed by this High Court in Satish Goyal and
Others v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home
Dehradun and Another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2047
of 2022.
13. The applicants maintain that their prosecution
constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and seek
quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and all
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3451 of 2021.
14. Learned counsel for the State submitted that during
the investigation, statements under Section 161 CrPC were
recorded from several witnesses, including Respondent No. 2,
Ashima, Archit Birmani, Ajay Kumar, and Manoj Sharma, who
directly implicated the applicants. It was contended that, based
on oral and documentary evidence, including the suicide note
and FSL report, the Investigating Officer found sufficient
material to file the chargesheet.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
15. It was further submitted that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar, after considering the record, rightly
found a prima facie case and took cognizance. Relying on
settled law, the State urged that the High Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, should not
assess the sufficiency or reliability of evidence as if conducting
a trial.
16. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 endorsed the State's
submissions, asserting that the FIR was based on actual facts
and that the investigation unearthed adequate material to
justify prosecution. She alleged continuous harassment and
torture of the deceased and Respondent No. 2 by the
applicants, driven by greed for property, which allegedly led to
the deceased's suicide.
17. It was further alleged that the applicants taunted
the deceased over the couple's childlessness and conspired to
deprive him of his share in family property. Respondent No. 2
claimed that the applicants sold ancestral land through a power
of attorney and left for Canada. Upon learning of this, the
deceased was allegedly assaulted and threatened by Applicants
No. 3 to 5, as also reflected in the suicide note.
18. In response, learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the power of attorney was jointly executed by
the deceased and Applicant No. 1 with mutual consent. It was
further contended that the hotel's overdraft account was solely
operated by the deceased, and Applicant No. 1 had made car
loan payments on his behalf, supported by bank documents. It
was argued that no criminal intent could be attributed to the
applicants, reiterating their prayer for quashing the charge-
sheet, cognizance order, and all related proceedings.
19. Having carefully considered the arguments
advanced by counsel for the applicants and the respondents,
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
and after examining the materials on record, we are of the
view that this application under Section 482 CrPC deserves to
be allowed.
20. The gravamen of the prosecution case against the
applicants is that they allegedly harassed and mentally
tortured the deceased Pradeep Maan over property matters,
which allegedly led him to commit suicide. The question before
us is whether, on the face of the materials on record, the
ingredients of an offence under Section 306 IPC are prima facie
made out.
21. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to
reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. Section 306 IPC
reads as follows:
"Section 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."
Section 107 IPC defines the term "abetment" as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing. 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 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
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a
warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B,
knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully
represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally
causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
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
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act."
22. Section 306 IPC requires a careful examination of
what constitutes culpable abetment under criminal law. The
provision demands more than passive association; it requires
affirmative acts that actively instigate, provoke, or intentionally
create circumstances where the deceased is left with no
reasonable alternative but to end their life.
23. To attract Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107
IPC, two elements must be established: first, a demonstrable
act or series of acts by the accused that either directly incite
the deceased to commit suicide or create an oppressive
environment leaving no escape; and second, a culpable
intention (mens rea) to drive the deceased to such an extreme
step.
24. Instigation need not be verbal or explicit it may be
inferred from conduct designed to inflict severe mental or
emotional distress. However, the law draws a distinction
between unpleasant or distressing conduct and conduct that
rises to the level of abetment. Mere familial discord, financial
disputes, or heated exchanges absent any demonstrable intent
to provoke suicide do not suffice.
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
25. The alleged acts of instigation must also bear a
direct and proximate link to the suicide. Isolated incidents,
especially those remote in time, cannot, without more, ground
a charge under Section 306 IPC. A tangible nexus between the
accused's conduct and the deceased's act of suicide must be
clearly established.
26. In the present case, even assuming the allegations
to be true, they primarily reflect generalized grievances arising
out of familial tension and financial disagreement. While such
circumstances may cause emotional strain, they do not, in the
absence of specific instances of deliberate incitement or wilful
oppression, meet the rigorous standard required under Section
306 IPC.
27. To qualify as abetment, it must be shown that the
accused not only contributed to the deceased's distress but did
so with the intent to compel the act of suicide. Without such
evidence, the allegation of abetment remains legally
unsustainable.
28. The applicants have filed documents showing joint
ownership and the deceased's operational control over the
businesses. The power of attorney and bank statements
support their claim of no attempt to deprive the deceased of
his rights. None of the applicants have prior criminal
antecedents. As the trial is at a preliminary stage, allowing
proceedings to continue without clear prima facie evidence
would cause undue harassment. Judicial scrutiny under Section
482 CrPC is limited to preventing abuse of the process and
ensuring justice is not derailed by groundless prosecution.
29. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court
finds that a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is not
made out. The matter appears to be essentially civil and
familial. In the absence of any overt act of instigation,
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4277
continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the legal
process.
ORDER
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 1823 of 2021 is allowed. In the considered view of this
Court, the allegations do not prima facie disclose any offence
under Section 306 IPC. Continuation of proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
31. Therefore, the impugned charge-sheet dated
22.01.2021, the cognizance order dated 09.03.2021 passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.
3451 of 2021 (State vs. Sharanjeet Maan and others), and all
proceedings arising there from, are hereby quashed.
___________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 15.05.2025
SB
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2021 - Navdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand.
Ashish Naithani J.
