Introduction:

In the case titled Vandana Srivastava (Actual Name Smt. Vandana) and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to retired High Court judge Justice Anil Kumar and his wife, who were named as accused in an FIR alleging abetment of suicide of their domestic help. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, which passed an interim order staying their arrest while considering a criminal writ petition that sought quashing of the FIR lodged under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the provision corresponding to Section 306 IPC. The controversy arose from an incident on March 14, 2025, when a theft of ₹6.5 lakhs allegedly occurred at the residence of the petitioners. Following the incident, the petitioners submitted a written complaint at the local police station on March 17, 2025, accusing their peon Mahesh Nishad of the theft. Although no FIR was registered against Nishad, the petitioners claimed he had admitted his guilt and an agreement was reached at the police station where he undertook to return part of the stolen amount. However, on April 2, the wife of the deceased Mahesh Nishad lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners’ threats led him to die by suicide on April 1, 2025. The FIR claimed that Nishad left behind a suicide note and a video message attributing blame to the petitioners, thereby implicating them in the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest on grounds that, even accepting the allegations in the FIR as correct, they did not constitute the essential ingredients of abetment required under Section 108 BNS read with Section 45 BNS (corresponding to Section 107 IPC). The petitioners argued that instigation or aid must be direct, deliberate, and of a nature to leave the deceased with no option but to commit suicide, and that mere lodging of a complaint regarding theft and subsequent calls do not fulfill the requirement of close proximity between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. They further submitted that the FIR lacked any concrete details of the purported threats or coercive conduct that could reasonably establish a chain of events directly leading to the suicide.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Advocate Pranshu Agrawal, representing the petitioners, forcefully argued that the FIR, even if taken at face value, only shows the petitioners lodged a complaint about a theft that had occurred in their home, which cannot be treated as instigation to suicide. He stressed that the case lacked any element of active, deliberate instigation or willful conduct on the petitioners’ part that could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step. Relying on established judicial precedents, counsel submitted that abetment requires clear evidence of a proximate, active role in the suicide by way of threats or cruelty of such magnitude that the victim is left feeling trapped and compelled to end their life, none of which was evident in the FIR or supporting material. On the other hand, the State counsel, while opposing the plea, contended that the FIR clearly stated that the petitioners made threats to the deceased, resulting in his suicide, and argued that these allegations required investigation, which could not be short-circuited by prematurely quashing the FIR or staying the investigation. The State counsel did not, however, dispute the factual sequence laid out by the petitioners regarding the events preceding the suicide, including the theft complaint and the absence of any FIR registered against the deceased. Instead, the State sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit to respond to the factual and legal submissions made by the petitioners.

Court’s Judgement:

After hearing both sides and analyzing the FIR’s contents, the bench observed that the allegations essentially revolved around the petitioners lodging a complaint about theft against the deceased and subsequent calls made to him. The bench found that the FIR did not elaborate on the content of those calls, nor did it establish that the calls contained threats of such gravity that they could have instigated the deceased to die by suicide. Emphasizing the legal requirement of direct and proximate instigation for an offence under Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 BNS), the Court quoted well-established principles holding that for abetment to be established, the conduct of the accused must be of such intensity that it pushes the victim into a state of utter helplessness, leaving no choice but to end their life. The bench observed, “…the act of instigation, in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 BNS), is required to be of such an intensity, so as to push the deceased to such perplexity under which he has no choice, but, to commit suicide. Such instigation must also be in close proximity to the act and time of suicide.” On a prima facie reading, the Court found that the ingredients necessary to constitute abetment of suicide were missing in the case. It noted that apart from the complaint and unsubstantiated claims of phone calls, there was no material on record showing any conduct by the petitioners that could be considered as instigation within the meaning of law. The Court therefore directed that no coercive action, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioners until further orders, granting four weeks’ time to the State to file its counter-affidavit and two weeks thereafter to the petitioners to file their rejoinder. The matter was directed to be listed on August 20, 2025, for the next hearing. By staying the arrest of the petitioners, the High Court provided interim relief while clarifying that its observations were only prima facie in nature, not amounting to final adjudication on the merits of the case.