Supreme Court Quashes Trial Under S.306 IPC, Orders Reinvestigation by SIT After Finding One‑Sided Probe

A three‑judge Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC arising from the alleged abetment of suicide of a young woman, Tanu, and considered whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance met the legal threshold to sustain such an offence.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 2843 of 2023 (Crime No. 367 of 2022, PS Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur), and directed a reinvestigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a DIG‑rank officer. The Court observed that the material on record did not disclose the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC and that the police had proceeded on a “one‑sided version” without conducting an independent probe. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge‑sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly ... only reinforces our suspicion viz. one‑sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the appellants in the charge‑sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of process." The Court further noted that “the charge‑sheet, as it stands, appeared to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant ... as the gospel truth.”

Background The dispute arose after two related deaths in November 2022. On 2 November 2022 the father of Ziaul Rahman lodged an FIR alleging assault on his son; Ziaul later died. On the same day Tanu, a cousin of the complainant in the second FIR, was found dead by hanging; post‑mortem records recorded ante‑mortem hanging and ligature marks. A First Information Report alleging abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC was registered on 3 November 2022 by respondent no. 2, Vijay, accusing the appellants of having taunted Tanu earlier that morning and saying, “because of you our boy has died, why you do not die”, which allegedly led Tanu to take her life between 10:30–11:00 am.

The appellants obtained anticipatory bail and challenged the charge‑sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the materials did not satisfy the requirements for Section 306. The Allahabad High Court declined to quash the proceedings, finding a proximate link between the alleged humiliation and Tanu’s suicide and describing Tanu as “hypersensitive” and depressed. This Court, however, examined precedents on abetment—citing Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and later authorities—and reiterated that “specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC” and an intention to instigate or aid suicide were required. The Court found the charge‑sheet to be factually and legally deficient, noted troubling investigative gaps (including delayed statements and absence of broader inquiry), and held that reinvestigation was necessary to uncover other possible angles, including whether Tanu’s distress arose from other causes. The Court granted liberty to the SIT to re‑register the FIR if appropriate and directed the reinvestigation report to be placed before the Court in a sealed cover within two months. The appeal was allowed and the matter was listed for 15 April 2025 for further directions and consideration of the SIT report.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 7371 of 2024) Case Title: Ayyub & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bhuwan Raj (learned counsel for the appellants) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh (learned counsel for the State); Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh (learned counsel for complainant R‑2)