NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483 · Decided: 03-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483 : 2024 INSC 767
Nipun Aneja and Others 
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017)
03 October 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants 
herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under  
section 306 of IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide –  
Victim-deceased was an employee of a company for past  
twenty-three years – It is alleged that company wanted some 
of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme 
(VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the 
VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or 
the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office 
meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants and 
he felt very bad about it – Later, in a hotel room he committed 
suicide – Charge-sheet was filed – The High Court declined 
to quash the proceedings:
Held: The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is 
to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on 
record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that 
the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide – 
Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention 
can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – In the 
case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said 
to be incorrect – The High Court should have examined the matter 
keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 
03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable 
harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the 
only escape – To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues 
of the deceased referred were sufficient; (b) Are the appellants 
accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased 
by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him 
to commit suicide; (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with 
1484
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial 
ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out; 
(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged 
the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due 
to public humiliation & loss of dignity – In the overall view of the 
matter, putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted 
the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but 
abuse of process of law – In opinion of this Court, no case worth 
the name against the appellants is made out. [Paras 22, 23, 25]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Ingredients to constitute an offence 
u/s.306:
Held: The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 
306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the 
suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming 
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but 
to commit suicide – Further, as the extreme action of committing 
suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological 
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two 
broad categories – First, where the deceased is having sentimental 
ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category 
would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused 
in his or her official capacity – In the case of former category 
sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may 
result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently 
creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the 
person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may 
give temptations to the person to commit suicide – In the case of 
second category the tie is on account of official relations, where 
the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided 
for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided 
in law – In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie 
cannot be equated with the official relationship – The reason being 
different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship – The former 
category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, 
by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by 
law, rules, policies and regulations. [Para 21]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Understanding of Courts – 
Unnec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.