Delhi High Court – Orders
The State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Kuldeep Singh Alias Prince And Ors on 4 August, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010280152022
+ CRL.REV.P. 464/2022
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State
SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Nihal Vihar.
versus
KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS PRINCE AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K Mittal, Mr Paramjeet Singh,
Ms Himani Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 04.08.2026
1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner seeks for setting
aside the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by ASJ (SFTC) RC-01, West, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Impugned Order”) in relation to FIR No. 93/2021
under Sections 306, 120B, 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(‘IPC‘) registered at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi, whereby the
respondents/accused were discharged.
2. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is
sufficient material on record to warrant the prosecution of the respondents. It
is contended that, at the stage of framing of charges, the learned Trial Court
ought not to have discharged the respondents, as the material available raises
a strong suspicion regarding their involvement. Learned APP has also drawn
the attention of this Court to the alleged suicide note in support of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:40:16
prosecution’s case.
3. The aforesaid submissions are vehemently opposed by learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the material
placed on record does not disclose any act of abetment on the part of the
respondents in close proximity to the incident so as to attract the ingredients
of the alleged offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of discharge
calls for no interference.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.
5. The Supreme Court in Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
and Anr.1 observed that to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, the
prosecution must establish direct or indirect instigation or incitement by the
accused in close proximity to the commission of suicide, coupled with mens
rea. Paras. 14-15 of the said decision are extracted as under:
“14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and
again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment
to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or
incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide
and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other
option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this
Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding
another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of
the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea
on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a
charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires
an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the
deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.”
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:40:16
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Further in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka2 the
Supreme Court held that a broken relationship or a mere refusal to marry, by
itself, does not constitute the offence of abetment. Paragraphs 26-31 of the
said decision is extracted as under:
“26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were
elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police3 and it was observed as under:
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
[(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. 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 suicidality 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 straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this Court are 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 disease to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push
the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide.
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and
heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship
would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in
order to constitute ‘Instigation’ it must be shown that the accused had by his
acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:40:16
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide.
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the
accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to
commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of the deceased had simply
refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to
abet the crime of suicide.
30. If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of
law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased
and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of
broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide.
The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill
herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village
while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an
affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would
commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused-
appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or
provoking the deceased to commit suicide.
31. Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant
promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a
simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of
action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306,
specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where no guilty intention
or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. The material portion of the Impugned Order capturing the crux of the
ASJ’s reasoning is extracted as under:
“9. In such circumstances, the act of deceased in ending her life is
manifestly her reaction to circumstances rather than result of some
active advice or instigation by accused Kuldeep. The death of deceased is
result of her ambivalence towards the accused Kuldeep and attitude-
relevant behavior of hers.
10. The deceased and also the informant-father of deceased, admit that
there existed consensual sexual relations between deceased and the
accused Kuldeep. The deceased in her alleged suicide note and her
father in his information to police. Thus, the sexual intercourse between
deceased and accused does not warrant to be considered rape.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:40:16
11. Charge as proposed u/s 376 (2) (n) IPC against accused is not made
out.
12. Also, for the discussion made above, no charge u/s 306 IPC is made
out against the accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh @ Prince,
Paramjeet Kaur, Simran Kaur @ Pinku and Narender Singh.
13. There is no material on record of such inculpatory nature that would
warrant that accused Paramjeet Kaur be charged u/s 506 IPC.
13-A. Therefore, all the accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh @
Prince, Paramjeet Kaur, Simran Kaur @ Pinku and Narender Singh are
discharged.”
8. On a proper analysis of the material available on record, as well as the
legal principles laid in Prakash (Supra) and Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi
(Supra), this Court finds no perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned
order warranting interference.
9. The present petition is, thus, bereft of merit and is dismissed.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
AUGUST 4, 2026
Nc/Ksr
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2026 at 20:40:16
