The Supreme Court held that the mere statement in a suicide note that a person is responsible for suicide cannot be a ground to issue summons to face trial for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The victim, who was working as a security Guard at Mandi Samiti, had committed suicide by consuming poison after leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same to the respondent, who was the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti.

The Court noted that apart from the alleged incident, there was no other allegation of a continued course of conduct (against the Secretary) creating circumstances compelling the victim to or leaving the victim with no other option but to, commit suicide. The Court further noted the conspicuous absence of any reference to the alleged incident in the suicide note.

Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “The so-called suicide note would not reveal and reflect that the victim was disturbed on account of non-receipt of salary and for that reason, he was bent upon to commit suicide. Though it is stated that the respondent No.2 is responsible for his suicide however, there is absolute absence of any material or even a case in the complaint and in the so-called suicide note that the respondent No.2 has abetted late Brijesh Chandra in a manner that will attract the provisions under Section 107, IPC.

AOR Raj Kamal represented the appellant, while AOR Sakshi Kakkar appeared for the respondents.

The Magistrate made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202, Cr.PC, and issued summons to the Secretary for abetment of suicide after a negative report was filed by the police. However, the Allahabad High Court quashed the summons.

The Supreme Court clarified that “there cannot be any doubt with respect to the power of the Magistrate to issue summons even after filing of a negative report by the police.

The Court elucidated that a Magistrate was not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC. The issuance of summons was a serious matter, and, therefore, should not be done mechanically and should be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 261)


Appellant: AOR Raj Kamal; Advocates Maheen Pradhan, Aseem Atwal, Kartavya Batra, Anurag Chandra, Nupur Kaushik, Aprajita Tyagi and Muskan Sidana

Respondents: AOR Sakshi Kakkar and Praveen Chaturvedi; Advocates Ajay Singh, R Karthik and Shashidhar Tripathi

Click here to read/download the Judgment