LexABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 966 : 2025 INSC 990 Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2177-2185 of 2024) 18 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.108 and s.45 – A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22.02.2021, leaving behind a suicide note which named persons, both in the administration and the police, who according to him, conspired to defame, degrade and demean him so as to end his political career and bring down his social standing, thus driving him to suicide – FIR registered – Accused-respondents filed separate applications u/s. 482 CrPC to quash FIR, which was allowed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: The deceased was no ordinary person, though he had his roots in a marginalised community – There is no allegation of any public humiliation on the basis of caste or a casteist slur having been spoken – The first of these allegations, refers to an incident on the 02.08.2020 – The deceased was not given proper respect and regard due to an M.P., was the allegation – As far as this allegation is concerned, restrictions were imposed on official functions and public celebrations were toned down,to arrest the spread of the Covid pandemic – There is another allegation regarding M.P. having not being invited for a function in December 2020 – The deceased M.P. was a seasoned politician, and one cannot infer such instances of disrespect alone having goaded him into suicide, that too after a couple of months – The Parliamentarian stood up to * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 967 Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. the insult and approached the Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha – The deceased was a person of standing, aware of his rights and privileges and conscious of the remedies possible – Further, deceased had also issued a legal notice alleging defamation – M.P. had also spoken of other instances of harassment by certain officers, not named, but their designations spoken of before the Committee of Privileges – It is also pertinent that before the Committee of Privileges, there is no whisper about the Administrator or the extortion attempted or even the take over of the trust as alleged – In any event, the Committee of Privileges had seriously considered the complaint raised by the M.P. and the Chairman of the Committee, had on 12.02.2021 informed the M.P. of the investigation initiated insofar as the conduct of the administration, as recorded in the minutes – It was also recorded that a letter has been sent for the safety of the M.P. – After 10 days on 22.02.2021,without any intervening circumstance or incident, the Parliamentarian committed suicide – Neither the incident of 02.08.2020 nor the failure of the administration alleged in December 2020; both of not respecting the hierarchical protocol for an M.P., can be seen as an instigation or causation of suicide or the proximate and prior trigger – Also, it is presumed that suicide note was discovered by the police when the body was detected – However, when body was taken for last rites, no FIR was registered on the basis of the suicide note – There is nothing produced either by the appellant or the State to show that the suicide note was recovered along with the body – There is also no verification carried out of the handwriting in the suicide note, juxtaposed with the admitted handwriting of the deceased – Above all, the suicide note makes pointed allegations against named individuals, which was not done earlier – This Court cannot place any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case of abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or the statements made before the Committee of Privileges – Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly quashed the proceedings, finding the charge of abetment to commit suicide to be absent. [Paras 29-31, 33, 35, 36, 39] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.108 and s.45 – Ingredients of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.