Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulvir Singh @ Kulbir Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 29 July, 2026
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M)
Kulvir Singh @ Kulbir Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 22.07.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.07.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 29.07.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and
Ms. Akshita Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
********
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of FIR
No.115 dated 25.09.2016 registered under Section 306 of IPC at Police
Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, along with all consequential
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -2-
proceedings arising therefrom, including the report under Section 173 of the
Code and the supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement
of respondent No.2/complainant alleging therein that her brother Anil
Aggarwal was previously engaged in the business of scrap but had
subsequently remained without any work and used to stay at home. His son
Avishek and daughter Rashi were doing private jobs. The complainant called
his brother on 23.09.2016 to enquire about the health of his brother’s wife
Rajni Aggarwal, who had been admitted in Joshi Hospital on 23.09.2016 on
account of illness. On 25.09.2016 at about 08:30 AM, the complainant
received information that her brother Anil Aggarwal, his wife Rajni
Aggarwal and their two children had committed suicide in their house.
During the police proceedings, a suicide note was recovered from the spot.
In the said suicide note, the deceased named eight persons, including the
present petitioners and blamed them for compelling the family to take the
extreme step. It was alleged that the deceased had borrowed money from the
said persons, had repaid more than the principal amount along with interest,
but despite that they continued to demand money, harass and threaten the
family on a daily basis. It was further alleged that they used to threaten that
the wife and daughter of the deceased would be taken away. Being unable to
bear the continuous harassment and intimidation, the deceased along with
his family committed suicide.
3. After registration of FIR, the matter was thoroughly
investigated by the police. During the course of investigation, a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to enquire into the allegations
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -3-
levelled in the FIR. The SIT comprised the Superintendent of Police
(Operations), Jalandhar (Rural), Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Investigation), Jalandhar (Rural), Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub
Division Adampur and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhogpur.
The SIT conducted a detailed investigation by recording the statements of all
concerned persons, including the complainant Neelam Gupta. During her
statement before the SIT, the complainant stated that she was not aware of
the exact reason which led to the death of her brother and his family. She
further stated that when the FIR was registered she was under mental stress
and, thereafter, expressed that she was not interested in pursuing the case
and desired that the case be cancelled. Upon examining the entire material
collected during investigation, the SIT concluded that no evidence had
surfaced to establish that the accused persons had compelled or abetted the
deceased to commit suicide on account of non-payment or recovery of
money. Consequently, the SIT recommended that accused Sanjiv Kumar,
Arvinder Pal Singh, Deepak Kansal, Gurmukh Singh and Mandeep Nanda
be declared innocent.
4. As further revealed from the record, prior to the submission of
the SIT report, the SHO concerned had presented a report under Section 173
of the Code before the trial Court on 22.11.2016 against petitioner No.2
Rajvir Kaur and co-accused Bimal Kumar @ Atul, as the statutory period for
filing the challan was about to expire. Thereafter, upon completion of
investigation, the police accepted the findings of the SIT only to the extent
of five co-accused and declared them innocent. However, the petitioners
were not exonerated. Ultimately, the investigating agency submitted the
supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code against the present
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -4-
petitioners, namely Kulvir Singh @ Kulbir Singh and Rajvir Kaur, along
with co-accused Bimal Kumar @ Atul, finding sufficient material to proceed
against them for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The petitioners were
granted concession of bail. Aggrieved from their implication in the aforesaid
case, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
5. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that
they have been falsely implicated in this case. They are merely running a
tiffin service from their residence and are not engaged in the business of
finance or money lending. The suicide note itself is doubtful, inasmuch as it
appears to have been written and signed by a single person despite four
deaths having occurred. The possibility of fabrication or interpolation in the
suicide note cannot be ruled out. After registration of the FIR, an SIT was
constituted, which conducted a detailed inquiry and recorded the statements
of all concerned persons, including the complainant. During the inquiry, the
complainant herself stated that she was unaware of the actual reason behind
the deaths of her brother and his family and expressed that she was no longer
interested in pursuing the case. The SIT thereafter concluded that no
evidence had surfaced to show that the accused had compelled or abetted the
deceased to commit suicide on account of any financial transactions and
accordingly recommended cancellation of proceedings against several
accused persons. It is further submitted that despite the SIT findings, the
police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code against petitioner No.2
and thereafter a supplementary report against petitioner No.1, even though
similarly placed co-accused had been declared innocent.
6. It is further argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners
that even if the allegations in the FIR and suicide note are accepted in their
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -5-
entirety, the essential ingredients of abetment under Sections 306 and 107
IPC are not satisfied. There is no allegation of instigation, intentional aid or
conspiracy attributable to the petitioners. At best, the allegations disclose
financial dealings, which by themselves do not constitute the offence of
abetment of suicide. While submitting that mere demand for repayment of
money or existence of monetary transactions, without any positive act of
instigation or intentional aid, would not attract the offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC, it is prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings
deserve to be quashed as the continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.
7. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by
learned State that the FIR was registered on the basis of a detailed suicide
note in which the names of all eight accused, including the present
petitioners, were specifically mentioned along with their mobile numbers.
The suicide note categorically records that the deceased had borrowed
money from the petitioners and other accused persons, had already repaid
more than the principal amount along with interest, yet they continued to
harass, threaten and intimidate the deceased and his family on a daily basis.
It is specifically alleged that they threatened to take away the wife and
daughter of the deceased, owing to which the deceased and his family
ultimately committed suicide. Although, the SIT declared five co-accused
innocent, the petitioners were not exonerated during investigation. After
completion of investigation, the police found sufficient material against the
present petitioners and another accused and accordingly submitted the final
report under Section 173 of the Code against them before the trial Court.
The genuineness and evidentiary value of the suicide note are matters to be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -6-
tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section
482 of the Code. The suicide note and the surrounding circumstances prima
facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC against
the petitioners. No extraordinary circumstance has been made out to exercise
inherent powers by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
8. There has been no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2.
Even on the date when the case was reserved, none appeared on her behalf.
9. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
10. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and
ambit of the Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code (which
corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) as spelt out in several judicial
pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts.
The well settled proposition of law is that in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is not expected to analyze all
the facts, which are to be placed before the High Court. The power conferred
under this section is very specific and to secure the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of process of Court or to make any such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, such power can be
exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court has
drawn up some guidelines in some categories of cases by way of illustration
to circumscribe the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of the
justice or to give effect to an order of the Court. In case cited as State of
Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) SUPP 1 SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court
laid down the following guidelines requisite for exercising power under
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -7-
Section 482 of of the Code:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance onMOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -8-
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
11. The principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra) have been followed in a catena of judgments.
In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, it was
observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that although the inherent powers of a
High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice, yet, the High Court must not hesitate in
quashing such criminal proceedings, where essential ingredients of the
offence are not made out. In Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2021) 14 SCC 626, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment.
12. Reference can further be made to Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation
but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. Reference can further be made to Narinder Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code,
the High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put him into great
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -9-
oppression and prejudice and injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing criminal case.
13. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra :
2019 (18) SCC 191, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the
parameters as laid down in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra), had observed that for
quashing of the proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate was not called for. Appreciation
of evidence was also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the
allegations set out in the complaint did not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of its inherent powers.
14. In view of the above discussed position of law qua exercise of
inherent powers by this Court for quashing of criminal proceedings, this
Court is required to consider the question as to whether the quashing of the
FIR in this case can be allowed. The petitioners have been challaned in this
case for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on the
allegations that they harassed, threatened and intimidated the principal
victim Anil Aggarwal for repayment of some money and also threatened him
to take away his wife and daughter, owing to which the said victim and his
family ultimately committed suicide.
15. Since it is the case of the prosecution itself that the allegations
against the petitioners primarily rest upon the contents of the suicide note
and the allegations incorporated in the FIR, it is required to be examined
whether the alleged acts attributed to the petitioners, namely that they had
advanced loans to the deceased, repeatedly demanded repayment despite the
deceased having allegedly repaid more than the principal amount with
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -10-
interest, and had continuously harassed and threatened the deceased and his
family, are sufficient in law to constitute ‘abetment’ within the meaning of
Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC so as to hold the petitioners criminally
liable for the suicide committed by the deceased and his family. Before
coming to that point, it would be relevant to consider the provisions of
Sections 107 and 306 of IPC. ‘Abetment’ is defined under Section 107 of
IPC. To constitute abetment, it is to be proved that the accused instigates a
person either by act of omission or commission. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Section 107 of IPC, the state of mind to commit
a particular crime must be visible to determine the culpability. In order to
prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show
that the accused person had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of
mind, he abetted the said crime.
16. Then, so far as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, in order to
bring a case within the provisions of this section, any person who abets
commission of suicide by any other person is liable for punishment. It is
well settled proposition of law that in order to bring a case within the
provisions of Section 306 of IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of such 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 a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Instigation can be inferred where the accused had by his acts or omission
created such circumstance that the deceased was left with no other option
but to commit suicide. The well settled proposition of law is that the
abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -11-
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : (2010) 1 SCC 750, in order to convict
a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : 2009 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 196, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the
dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”, opined that
there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act
by the victim. There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Merely on the basis of the allegations of
harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled a person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable.
17. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
every act of harassment, quarrel or discord cannot be elevated to the offence
of abetment of suicide. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1
SCC 73, it was observed that Courts must exercise great caution while
dealing with cases under Section 306 of IPC. If the victim was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic
life, which are common to the society to which the victim belonged, and
such circumstances were not such as would ordinarily drive a similarly
situated person to commit suicide, the Court ought not to conclude that the
accused had abetted the commission of suicide. The said principle has been
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -12-
reiterated in S.S. Cheema v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190,
wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed that hypersensitivity of the deceased
to ordinary wear and tear of life cannot, by itself, fasten criminal liability
under Section 306 of IPC.
18. The ratio of law as laid down in the aforementioned judicial
precedents, when applied to the peculiar facts of the present case, does not
persuade this Court to hold that the allegations levelled against the
petitioners disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section
306 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the deceased had borrowed
money from the petitioners and other accused persons and, despite having
allegedly repaid more than the principal amount along with interest, the
petitioners continued to demand repayment, harass and threaten the deceased
and his family. It is also alleged that they threatened to take away the wife
and daughter of the deceased. However, except for these allegations
contained in the FIR and the suicide note, there is no material on record to
indicate any overt act, direct instigation, intentional aid or any proximate
conduct on the part of the petitioners immediately preceding the occurrence
which could be said to have driven the deceased and his family to commit
suicide. Mere allegations of persistent demands for repayment of money or
harassment in connection with financial transactions, without anything more,
do not by themselves satisfy the ingredients of “abetment” as contemplated
under Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC. As regards the suicide note, which is
a document of one page, all that can be said is that it is an anguish expressed
by the principal victim. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress at all
and cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the
accused that the deceased might commit suicide.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -13-
19. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v. State of Gujarat, 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 270, wherein it has been held that a creditor making repeated
phone calls or persistent demands for return of the money advanced by him
is merely asserting a lawful right and such conduct, by itself, does not
constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that in the absence of cogent
material indicating the nature of the alleged threats, the time and place at
which they were extended, or any overt act of physical assault or intentional
instigation on the part of the creditor, continuation of criminal proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was also held that a
person may commit suicide on account of depression or inability to repay his
debts, but such circumstances, without a clear and proximate act of
instigation attributable to the creditor, do not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 107 and 306 IPC. In the present case also, the allegations against
the petitioners are essentially that they had advanced money to the deceased
and were demanding repayment thereof despite the deceased having
allegedly repaid more than the principal amount along with interest. Except
for the general allegations contained in the FIR and the suicide note
regarding harassment and threats, there is no specific material indicating any
overt act, proximate instigation or intentional aid on the part of the
petitioners which could have left the deceased with no option except to
commit suicide.
20. In view of the discussion as made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings under the
impugned FIR against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-20280-2017 (O&M) -14-
process of law. The allegations made in the FIR and the material collected
during investigation, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose the
essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
The present case, therefore, falls within the categories illustratively laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra)
warranting exercise of inherent powers by this Court to secure the ends of
justice and prevent abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No. 10 dated 21.02.2020 registered under
Section 306 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka, along
with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua
the petitioners.
29.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.07.29 15:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
