Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 February, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010046132023
2026:GAU-AS:1957
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./219/2023
MD. MAINUL HOQUE AND ANR
S/O MD. JAHUR ALI
R/O PUB LORIMUKH
P.S. RUPAHIHAT
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM
2: MD. MOKSIDUL HOQUE @ MD. BABUL ISLAM
S/O MD. JAHUR ALI
R/O PUB LORIUKH
P.S. RUPAHIHAT
DIST. NAGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MD. MOKBUL HUSSAIN
S/O LATE BOSIR UDDIN
R/O PUB LORIMUKH
P.S. RUPAHIHAT
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MD R ISLAM,MD IMRAN,MS F HUSSAIN,MR. S
RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD R ISLAM (R-2),MR. S RAHMAN (R-2),MR S M
ABDULLAH P (R-2),MS F HUSSAIN (R-2)
Page No.# 2/11
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
12.02.2026
Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. S.M.
Abdullah P, the learned counsel appearing for the informant/Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the
proceedings of PRC Case No.539/2022 (arising out of Rupahihat P.S. Case
No.572/2021) pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Kaliabor, Nagaon.
3. On 19.08.2021, the respondent no.2 had lodged an FIR before the police that
the petitioner Md. Moksidul Hoque @ Md. Babul Islam had been in love with his
daughter for a period of four years. On 11.08.2021, Md. Moksidul Hoque @ Md. Babul
Islam took away the girl to his house in order to marry her. When the couple reached
home of the petitioner, the other petitioner Mainul Hoque assaulted the girl and drove
her out of the house.
4. Next day, i.e. on 12.08.2021, the petitioner Mainul Hoque had solemnized the
marriage of Md. Moksidul Hoque @ Md. Babul Islam with another girl. Unable to
tolerate all these things, the daughter of the informant committed suicide by
consuming poison.
5. Initially, police registered the case under Section 419/ 323/109 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code. After the death of the girl, Section 306 of the IPC was added. After
Page No.# 3/11
the investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present two petitioners.
6. Now, the informant, the father of the deceased girl and the present two
petitioners have compromised their disputes. The father of the girl has claimed that he
would have no objection if the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners are
quashed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.
8. Let me have a discussion on the settled position of law regarding the offence of
abatement of suicide.
9. Now, a close look into the law laid down in section 306 IPC may be required. The
section 306 of the IPC reads as under:
“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.”
10. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish:
(i) that a person committed suicide,
(ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused.
11. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an
abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of abetment have been
stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows:
“A Section:107. Abetment of a thing
person abets the doing of a thing, who – First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-
Engages with one or more other person or 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.
Page No.# 4/11
Explanation 1- A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact
which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing
to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
12. As per the law laid down in Section 107, a person can be said to have abetted in
doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly,
engages with one or more other person or 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 to Section 107 states that any willful
misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which he is bound to
disclose, may also come within the contours of abetment. It is manifest that under all
the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the
commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section
306 of the IPC.
13. Now, I need to delve into the settled position of law on the subject “abetment to
commit suicide”. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported
in AIR 2010 SC 1446, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has dealt with this subject. The
case history ofChitresh Kumar Chopra (supra) goes like this —-
“On 4th July, 2002, one Rahul Kaushik lodged the said First Information Report (FIR) with Police
Station, Mehrauli stating that his father Jitendra Sharma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)had committed suicide on 3rd July, 2002 by shooting himself with his licensed revolver. It was alleged
that the deceased was a partner with the appellant in this appeal along with two other persons viz.,
Jahuruddin and Mahavir Prasad and they were all engaged in the real estate business; he committed
suicide on account of the problems created by these three persons; the deceased left behind a suicide
note which mentioned that there were some money transactions between them and thus, these three
persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. For the sake of ready reference, relevant portion
of the suicide note is extracted below:
The money of Shri Bansi Dhar and Shri Grewal is with Ram Pashre. The money of Shri Puri and
Rajendra has been given to Ramjan, Mehrauli by Jahur and Jahur has become dishonest. The money
Page No.# 5/11of B.C. Malik and K.S. Yadav is with Mahesh, who has written the same and given. The rest, the ex-
SDE, Pamer Singh and had taken and did not do Puri’s work.
My children known nothing about this matter. C.K. Chopra’s money has been given by Jahur, Jahur
and Chopra are saying things against me and are thereby troubling me. Kartar etc., money was taken
by Jahur and Mahavir. They had taken it. The reason for the scandal are Chopra and his friends. They
are troubling me and are pressurizing me to write all this. I am stressed and therefore, going away.”
14. The Hon,ble Supreme Court has held —
“As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly,
instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or
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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of
material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of
“abetment”. It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person
or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC.”
15. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court further held that
as per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing
of a thing, who “instigates” any person to do that thing. The word “instigate” is not
defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by the Hon,ble Apex
Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618. At this
stage, the case history of Ramesh Kumar (supra) may be stated——-
“Sri Seema Devi, daughter of Sohan Lal Sharma and Smt. Prabahawati Devi was married
to accused-appellant Ramesh Kumar on 23.6.1985.Thereafter, on 17.6.1986, within one year
of marriage, Seema died of suicide. On 16.6.1986, she poured kerosene on herself and set
herself to fire. Before committing suicide she wrote a suicide note and a letter to her husband
in a diary on pages 11 and 12 thereof. Her dying-declaration was recorded on 16.6.1986 by,
Parmeshwar Dayal, Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate. Sohan Lal Sharma is a resident of
Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. The accused-appellant was residing in Shantinagar locality of Raipur.
Seems’ elder sister Shalini married with Dr. Ramadhar Sharma is also residing in Raipur. Thus,
the three families. i.e., the family of father of Seema, the family of her elder sister Shalini and
Page No.# 6/11the family of the accused-appellant are all residents of Raipur though residing in different
localities at reasonable distances from each other. Nevertheless the three families were on
visiting terms as admitted by almost all the witnesses. The finding of guilt as recorded by the
Trial Court and the High Court rests on the testimony of five witnesses, namely, Atul Kumar,
brother of the deceased, Shalini and Dr. Ramadhar Sharma, respectively, the sister and
sister’s husband of the deceased, Sohan Lal Sharma and Prabhawati Devi, parents of the
deceased. The letter to her husband in a diary on pages 11 and 12 thereof reads as under –
Page 11–“I Smt. Seema Dubey, ashamed of my own faults, am committing suicide.
Nobody is responsible and none should be harassed for it”.
On page 12 she wrote a letter to her husband as under:-
“Dear Raja,
With all love,
Raja this my last love. You have made me free that I may do whatever I wish and go where-ever I
like. Raja, after coming in this house now I have no other place to go leaving you. You know, you
have now made me free of words I had given that I would not commit suicide. Now I would die
peacefully…Raja, this is my last word I do love you and you only, not anyone else.
Now I cannot write ‘yours’
SEEMA”
16. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), under the said circumstances, the Hon,ble Apex Court
has held as under-
“The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available is
this. Presumably because of disinclination on the part of the accused to drop the deceased at her
sister’s residence the deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was overtaken by a
feeling of shortcoming which she attributed to herself. She was overcome by a forceful feeling
generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not deserve to be his life-partner.
The accused Ramesh may or must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she
liked. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate conveyance the
deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister’s residence to see her. Presumably the accused
may have said some such thing-you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The
Page No.# 7/11deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her
husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had
“freed” her she thought impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die
peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband’s wish. Can this be
called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the Trial Court mis-spelt out the meaning of the
expression attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the accused had made her
free to commit suicide. Making the deceased free-to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she
wished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the accused had made the deceased free
“to commit suicide” as held by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court.”
17. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J.
(as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though
it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes
“instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A
word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a
person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an
act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word
“goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction”
(See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody
until he reacts” (See: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary – 7thEdition). Similarly,
“urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make
a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing
or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or
“urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
Page No.# 8/11act by the latter.
18. As observed in Ramesh Kumar‘s case (supra), where the accused by his acts or
by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In
other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a
person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful
silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,
words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly
in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
19. In Gangula Mohan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2010
SC 327, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has again deliberated upon this subject. This
judgment was rendered subsequent to Chitresh Kumar (supra), though the citation
speaks otherwise. The factual matrix of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) is like this —,
“The appellant, who is an agriculturist had harassed his agriculture labour (servant)
deceased Ramulu by levelling the allegation that he had committed theft of some gold
ornaments two days prior to his death. It was also alleged that the appellant had demanded
Rs. 7,000/- from the deceased which was given in advance to him at the time when he was
kept in employment. The prosecution further alleged that the deceased Ramulu could not
bear the harassment meted out to him and he committed suicide by consuming pesticides.
The prosecution in support of its case examined the father of the deceased as P.W.1
UrikondaJammanna in which he had stated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and used
to work at the house of the appellant. He also stated that the appellant gave Rs. 7,000/- in
advance to his son. PW1 also stated that about two years ago, the appellant had asked his
son (Ramulu) that his wrist watch was missing from his house and harassed him on which his
son had returned the watch to the appellant. PW1 in his statement stated that the appellant
also levelled the allegation that the gold ear-rings were also missing from his house and the
same were stolen by Ramulu. PW1 also stated that the appellant also demanded the advance
of Rs. 7,000/- paid to Ramulu at the time of his employment. He further stated that Ramulu
committed suicide because the appellant had levelled the allegation of theft of ornaments.”
20. The Hon,ble Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view which was taken in
Page No.# 9/11
Chitresh Kumar (supra) and held that –
“The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The court
opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self
esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
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 accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act 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.”
21. In, Mahendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC
731, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has dealt with the subject of abetment to commit
suicide. In the case of Mahendra Singh (supra), the allegations levelled are as under:
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed
me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He
has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I
want to die by burning.”
22. The Hon,ble Apex Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite
conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of
harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. The observation of the Hon,ble
Supreme Court in is quoted as under–
“The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section
306 I.P.C., because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and
if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has
been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly
Page No.# 10/11instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
statement of the deceased.”
23. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.[ reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73],
the Hon,ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful
in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in
the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a
victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged
and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the
Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
24. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR
1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
Page No.# 11/11accompanying the FIR 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
25. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that in this case there
is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners. Therefore, allowing criminal
proceedings to continue before the trial court, would be nothing but an abuse of the
process of the court. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of
the CrPC.
26. Accordingly, the proceedings of PRC Case No.539/2022 (arising out of Rupahihat
P.S. Case No.572/2021) pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kaliabor, Nagaon, are hereby quashed and set aside.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant