The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an order quashing an FIR alleging suicidal death of Former Member Of Parliament Mohan Delkar. The Apex Court held that however harsh or severe the harassment was, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an order allowing separate applications to quash the FIR registered against the accused persons who were named in the suicide note.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim”.

It also added, “However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.”

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora represented the Appellant, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide in the year 2021, leaving behind a suicide note which named persons, both in the administration and the police of Dadra and Nagar Haveli , 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. The accused, the respondents named in the suicide note, filed separate applications to quash the FIR, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which were allowed by the High Court by a common order, against which the appeals had been filed.

Reasoning

On the aspect of abetment of suicide, the Bench explained that even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the deceased was no ordinary person, though he had his roots in a marginalised community. There was no allegation of any public humiliation on the basis of caste or a casteist slur having been spoken. He rose up in the political front presumably by his grit and determination, especially having been elected to the Lok Sabha seven times, loosing only once in three decades, that too as an independent candidate.

The Bench referred to an incident which allegedly led to the suicide. The incident allegedly occurred on August 2, 2020, on the Liberation Day of the Union Territory, including the constituency of the deceased when the deceased was not given proper respect and regard due to an M.P. The Bench referred to a counter affidavit wherein it was mentioned that curbs were imposed for reason of the Covid pandemic raging at that time and public celebrations were toned down. Another incident which allegedly led to the suicide was that the M.P. was invited for a function in which the Minister of State for Home of the Union Government participated. On this aspect, the Bench said, “The deceased M.P. was a seasoned politician, and we cannot infer such instances of disrespect alone having goaded him into suicide, that too after a couple of months.”

It was also noticed that the Parliamentarian stood up to the insult and approached the Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha, the minutes of which had been produced. Insofar as the allegation of circulation of news items and videos, as alleged against a private individual, it was pointed out that the deceased had issued a legal notice alleging defamation.The Bench also found that the Committee of Privileges had seriously considered the complaint raised by the M.P. and the Chairman of the Committee, had 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. The M.P. then travelled to Mumbai, presumably with his fears assuaged and the insults he complained of mitigated, by the action proposed by the Committee of Privileges. After 10 days,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”, the Bench said.

It was further noticed that on the day, when the deceased’s body was taken back to Silvassa for the last rites, there was also no FIR registered on the basis of the suicide note. There was also no verification carried out of the handwriting in the suicide. The actions of the officers of the administration, alleged to be a direct result of the conspiracy hatched by the Administrator to coerce the petitioner, was never raised any time earlier. “We 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”, it noted.

“There arises a cloud on the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the manner in which the note was introduced in the case”, the Bench held while dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 990)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocates Meenakshi Arora, Prasenjit Keswani, Advocates Nitin Sangra, AOR Upmanyu Tewari, Advocate Chandertanay Choube

Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Hiten Venegavkar, Prashant R. Dahat, Sunny Bhimra, Mugdha Pande,Vaibhav Thaledi, Ajay Awasthi, AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar

Click here to read/download Judgment


CJI BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.