Wife’s Refusal To Resume Relationship Or Remarks On Husband’s Manhood Do Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Calcutta High Court
The Court held that matrimonial discord, emotional hurt or allegations affecting a spouse’s dignity, without any proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, cannot sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 306 and 506 IPC against a woman and her father, holding that even if the wife had refused to resume matrimonial relations with the deceased and had allegedly questioned his manhood, such conduct by itself would not amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of any positive act of instigation.
The Court was hearing a criminal revisional application seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Barasat, arising out of allegations that the deceased committed suicide due to mental cruelty and humiliation allegedly inflicted by his wife and her family members.
A Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed: “Even if the petitioner/wife expressed her disapproval towards restitution of marital relationship with the deceased and had allegedly made any remark, such as questioning the manhood of the deceased, it does not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge, in order to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioners.”
Senior Advocates Sandipan Ganguly and Sourav Chatterjee appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Kallok Kumar Basu and Rituparna De Ghosh appeared for the respondents.
Background
According to the petitioners, the marriage between the deceased and petitioner no.1 was solemnised in December 2021. Soon after the marriage, the wife allegedly discovered that the deceased was suffering from epidermoid cysts affecting his scrotum, which had allegedly not been disclosed before marriage. The wife claimed that despite repeated requests, the deceased refused to seek medical treatment and instead asked her to leave the matrimonial home.
The petitioners stated that the wife left the matrimonial home in February 2022 and later returned only once in July 2022 to collect her belongings after the deceased allegedly refused reconciliation. According to the petitioners, after July 2, 2022, the wife neither met nor spoke with the deceased. The deceased subsequently died by suicide on September 19, 2022.
The FIR alleged that the wife had refused to resume matrimonial ties despite requests made by the deceased and that after his death, a diary was discovered in which the deceased allegedly stated that the petitioners and other family members were responsible for his death.
The prosecution further alleged that the deceased had been subjected to humiliation, including remarks questioning his masculinity, and that photographs relating to his medical condition had been circulated.
Court’s Observation
At the outset, the High Court noted that the prosecution's case was entirely founded upon the alleged suicide note left behind by the deceased. The Court observed that even if the contents of the suicide note were accepted at face value, the allegations failed to disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute abetment under Section 107 IPC.
The Court observed that the suicide note merely referred to the names of the accused persons without disclosing any specific overt act, conspiracy or intentional aid that could have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
The Bench further noted that after July 2, 2022, there was no allegation that the petitioners had either physically met or spoken to the deceased before the suicide nearly two-and-a-half months later.
Referring to Section 107 IPC, the Court reiterated that abetment requires instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The Court observed that “mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible”.
Relying upon Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Court observed that instigation means to “goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage” the doing of an act and that mere words uttered in anger without intention to drive a person to suicide would not amount to abetment.
The Court also referred to State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994), wherein the Supreme Court cautioned that courts must carefully assess whether ordinary discord and petulance in domestic life could reasonably induce a similarly situated individual to commit suicide.
The Bench further relied upon Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2009), wherein the Supreme Court held that there must be intention to provoke, incite or encourage commission of the act and that each case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances.
The High Court found that at best, the materials on record suggested matrimonial discord and emotional dissatisfaction. The Court observed: “The victim might have had hypersensitiveness to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in marital life, which is otherwise quite common to the society to which the victim belonged, but such discord in matrimonial life is not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide.”
The Court also noted that the investigation had failed to reveal who had allegedly circulated photographs relating to the deceased’s medical condition or how they were circulated.
Referring to Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District (2025), the Court noted that the Supreme Court had quashed proceedings under Section 306 IPC in a case involving allegations that the deceased had been called “impotent and infertile” before suicide. The High Court observed that the facts of the present case were “identical in many respects” to the Supreme Court decision.
The Bench observed that in Shenbagavalli (2025), the Supreme Court held that remarks questioning a person’s manhood, though hurtful, could not by themselves amount to sufficient provocation for abetment to suicide, particularly where there was no proximate act of instigation.
The Court ultimately held that there was “no iota of evidence” against the petitioners disclosing ingredients of Sections 306 or 506 IPC and that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the court.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court held that even if all materials collected during the investigation were accepted at face value, the allegations only disclosed matrimonial discord and emotional dissatisfaction and did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.
Holding that the alleged acts of the petitioners were “too remote and indirect” to constitute abetment of suicide and that there was no material showing instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revisional application and quashed the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Barasat, arising out of the FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 IPC.
Cause Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:699)
Appearances
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Sandipan Ganguly & Sourav Chatterjee, Senior Advocate; Advocate Aditya Tiwari
Respondents: Advocates Kallok Kumar Basu, Jannat Ul Firdous, Rajsekhar Hota, Rituparna De Ghosh, Abhinaba Mukherjee
