Holding

The FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, so the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition and the FIR is quashed.

Summary

The appellant, a Physical Training Teacher, was charged under Section 306 IPC for alleged abetment of his student’s suicide, based on an FIR alleging harassment and insult. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the teacher’s reprimand for indiscipline amounted to abetment, emphasizing that Section 306 requires a direct or indirect act of incitement and mens rea, which were absent. The Court held that mere harassment or disciplinary action does not satisfy the elements of abetment and that the FIR lacked specific allegations of intent to induce suicide. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal was erroneous, and the FIR was quashed. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC sufficient to deny quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether a teacher’s disciplinary reprimand and reporting of a student’s absenteeism can constitute abetment of suicide.
Scope and proper exercise of the inherent power of a High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings.
Whether the High Court erred in mechanically dismissing the petition without evaluating the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 155(2), s. 156(1), s. 439, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306, s. 309
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009s. 24(e)

Subjects

Abetment of suicideSection 306 IPCSection 482 CrPCInherent jurisdictionTeacher disciplinary actionMens reaQuashing of FIR

Judgment

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 393 393

GEO VARGHESE A
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021)
OCTOBER 05, 2021 B
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Allegation against
appellant was that the son of the complainant committed suicide
due to mental harassment meted out by the appellant – Appellant
C
was physical Training Teacher in the school where complainant’s
son was student – Appellant was also assigned responsibility for
maintaining overall discipline by the students of the school – The
allegations in the FIR was that the appellant had harassed and
insulted her son in the presence of everyone due to which he was
under deep mental pressure and committed suicide – High Court D
dismissed s. 482 application for quashing the FIR – Hence the
instant appeal – Held: To constitute an alleged abetment of suicide
under s.306 IPC, there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide –
In the FIR and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by
E
the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and
insult the victim were spelled out nor there were any details with
respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the
deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted – Appellant
in his petition under s.482 before the High Court set out detailed
facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed F
to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to
the conclusion – It was also stated therein that the victim, school
student, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the
appellant and other school staff a number of times – Persistent act
of bunking classes was reported to the Principal of the School,
G
who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school – A
simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline
by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate good
qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount
to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of suicide by a
student – No further overt act was attributed to the appellant either H
393
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in
this regard was stated in the alleged suicide note – Thus, no mens
rea can be attributed – In the absence of the element of abetment
missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence
under s.306 IPC do not exist – All these facts were clearly ignored
by the High Court while mechanically dismissing the petition under
B
s.482 CrPC on the ground that FIR disclosed the commission of a
cognizable offence – High Court was not justified in dismissing the
application under s.482 CrPC for quashing the FIR in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Scope of – Held:
C High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do
real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court – The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn
duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise – The
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
D power is based on sound principles – The inherent power vested in
the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
– However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power
conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a
proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding
to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the
E ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
Penal Code, 1860: s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Essential
ingredients – There must be an allegation of either direct or indirect
act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere
allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would
F not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions
on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of
suicide.
Allowing the appeal, the Court

G HELD: 1. An attempt to suicide is considered to be an
offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by
anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. Though, the
IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary
meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a
modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’
H
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 395

means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self- A
killing’. In other words, act of death must be committed by the
deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in
achieving the object of killing himself. Section 306 of IPC makes
abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment
for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC. The
B
ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring
about or initiate, incite someone to do something. [Paras 13, 14,
15, 16][402-G; 403-B-C, G-H]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; S.S.Cheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010] C
9 SCR 1111; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427; M. Arjunan v.
State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3
SCC 315; Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019)
17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703; Narayan Malhari D
Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. (2019) 13
SCC 598 : [2018] 14 SCR 232 – relied on.
2. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of
suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of
either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of E
offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself,
unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the
accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if
the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the
allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily F
expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme
step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an
examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances
and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as G
well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused
and the psyche of the deceased. [Para 22][408-E-G]
3. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental
pressure because the appellant had harassed and insulted him in
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A the presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school
on 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the
complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was
under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today
again he was harassed and insulted by the appellant. The boy was
informed that the parents have been called to school next day
B
and this brought him under further severe pressure and tension.
In the First Information Report and as also the statement of the
complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the
appellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there
are any details with respect to any action on the part of the
C appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being
harassed and insulted. [Paras 24, 25][409-A-D]
4. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC
before the High Court has set out detailed facts and
circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even
D take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the
conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he
was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th
standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, was
also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the school
which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee that
E they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and
moving around in the school premises without permission. It was
also stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to
bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school
staff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the
F appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus
without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him.
On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the
appellant issued him a warning and reported the same to the
Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to
come to the school. [Para 26][409-D-G]
G
5. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the
students. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other
authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline,
would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide,

H
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 397

unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and A
insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple
act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by
a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good
qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount
to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide
B
by a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of
the legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold
regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them
about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made
in learning and any other act or relevant information about the C
child. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly
bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated
acts, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who
called the parents on telephone to come to the school. No further
overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in the First
D
Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor
anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide
note. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as, the
appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’.
Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or
instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with E
the offence for which he is being charged. [Paras 27, 28, 29]
[409-G-H; 410-A-F]
6. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an
act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline
to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the F
parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and
correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or
sentimental commits suicide, the said teacher cannot be held
liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of
abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC. Considering the facts
that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any act done in G
discharge of his moral or legal duty without their being any
circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any
intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of
his own pupil, no mens rea can be attributed. In the absence of
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the
essential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do not
exist. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court
while mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482
CrPC on the ground that FIR discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. [Paras 30, 32, 33][410-F-H; 411-A-C]
B
7. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being
very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring
great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see
C that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, the
inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the
High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it
D comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
[Para 34][411-C-E]
8. The suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down by
E an immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hyper-
sensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take
such an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the
accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily
induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.
[Para 39][414-C]
F
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2
SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &
Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692 : [1988] 2 SCR 930; State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp (1)
G SCC 335:[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; M/s.Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122:[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR
790 – relied on.

H
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 399

9. In the absence of any material on record even, prima- A
facie, in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out
any such circumstances showing any such act or intention that he
intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be
absurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to place
the deceased in such circumstances that there was no option
B
available to him except to commit suicide. Thus, it would be
travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial.
A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the
appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great prejudice,
if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant
nature. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the C
application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the First
Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
[Paras 40, 41, 42][414-D-G]
Case Law Reference
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 relied on Para 16 D

[2010] 9 SCR 1111 relied on Para 17
(2021) 2 SCC 427 relied on Para 18
(2019) 3 SCC 315 relied on Para 19
E
[2019] 9 SCR 703 relied on Para 20
[2018] 14 SCR 232 relied on Para 21
[1977] 3 SCR 113 relied on Para 35
[1988] 2 SCR 930 relied on Para 36
F
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 37
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 790 relied on Para 38
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1164 of 2021.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.2979 of 2018.
Abhishek Gupta, Adv. for the Appellant.
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Aditya Kr. Choudhary,
Deepak Chauhan, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Babu
Malayil, Alok Pandey, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
B
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated
30.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) dismissing the petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash
C the First Information Report dated 02.05.2018 registered as Case No.
162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South), the accused, a
Physical Training Teacher in St. Xavier’s School, Nevta, Jaipur and also
a member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining overall discipline
by the students of the School, who is to face prosecution for offence
D under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)
is before us.
3. The appellant herein was appointed as a Physical Training
Teacher in St. Xavier’s School, Nevta in the year 2016. He was imparting
Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard. He was also a
member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining overall discipline
E
by the students of the School.
4. One student of Class 9th of the institution, unfortunately,
committed suicide in the morning at about 04:00 AM on 26.04.2018. The
mother of the deceased-student lodged the FIR in question on 02.05.2018
before the concerned Police Station under Section 306 IPC after about
F 7 days of the suicide, alleging that her son committed suicide due to
mental harassment meted out by the appellant.
5. Detailed facts as unfolded in the First Information Report by
the complainant- Respondent No. 2 was that :
On 26.04.2018, my son Nitant Raj Lata, aged 14 years was found
G
hanging with the fan in the room at 04:00 AM by his grandmother.
Immediately, the knot was opened and after bringing him down,
he was immediately taken to Santkba Durlabhji Hospital where
doctors declared him brought dead. The Hospital administration
informed the concerned Police Station immediately and on the
H same day, the body of deceased was handed over to the police
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 401
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

and postmortem was conducted. It is further stated in the FIR A
that on 19.04.2018, Nitant Raj (the deceased) informed her that
on the said day his PTI (Physical Training Instructor) GEO Sir
had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone because
of which he was under deep mental pressure. However, she
persuaded her son and sent him to the School on Monday.
B
Thereafter, on 25.04.2018, when the child was in the School, a
telephone call was received from school at about 09:00 AM calling
the parents to come to the school on the next day i.e., 26.04.2018.
When Nitant returned from the school on 25.04.2018 again he
was under very much pressure and on being inquired he told that
today again GEO PTI Sir has harassed and insulted him very C
much. On this she persuaded the child that we will go to school
tomorrow and will discuss because a phone call came from the
school. Thereafter, the child had been under more severe pressure
and tension. He went to his room to sleep and was found hanging
at about 04:00 AM. It is further stated that on 30.04.2018 at 11:00
D
AM, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Kallu Khan, came to the house
and searched his room where a suicide note in two pages and
curtain which was used for hanging and other items like a blank
copy from which two pages were torn and note book, etc. were
recovered.
6. Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, E
Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the State-Respondent No. 1
and Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State-
Respondent No. 2. We have also gone through the impugned judgment
as also the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel
for the parties. F
7. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that on a plain reading of the First Information
Report, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that necessary
ingredients to constitute an offence of abetment, as defined under Section
306 IPC, are not borne out and the complaint does not disclose the
G
commission of the said offence.
8. It was further asserted that the allegations made in the FIR
clearly spells out that appellant in no manner abetted the commission of
suicide by the deceased as no such material exists on record and present
proceedings if allowed to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law. H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 9. Shri Abhishek Gupta, also took us through the suicide note which
is filed as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same reveals that it is a note
consisting of three pages with following written on each separate paper:-
01st page – ‘MY ALL THINGS GOES TO MY DEAR BRO
KAIRN EVEN MY LOVE BYE BUDDY & SORRY’
B 02nd page – ‘NEEDED JUSTICE’
03rd page – ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’
10. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Rajasthan contends that the allegations in the FIR discloses a
commission of cognizable offence and there is a suicide note specifically
C taking the name of the appellant. He further contends that the appellant
harassed the deceased from 19.04.2018 till 24.04.2018 and ultimately on
the complaint of the appellant when the deceased was called by the
Principal on 25.04.2018 for bunking classes and the parents were also
asked to come to school on 26.04.2018, the deceased committed suicide
D on the intervening night of 25.04.2018 - 26.04.2018 and there is a
proximate nexus in the harassment and suicide and thus, a prima facie
case for alleged cognizable offence is made out against the appellant
and the High Court has rightly refused to quash the First Information
Report.
11. Shri Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for
E
Respondent No. 2 – ‘the Complainant’, while trying to defend the
impugned order submits that the impugned First Information Report clearly
makes out that appellant’s direct and indirect acts of humiliation,
harassment led the deceased boy to commit suicide. He further submitted
that the question of mens rea attributable to the appellant cannot be
F established at this stage when the investigation is yet to be completed.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.
13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a
person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt
G to suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The
abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306
IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads
as under :-
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide,
H whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 403
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term A
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the
ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived
from a modern latin word ‘suicidium’, ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ B
means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In
other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself,
irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of
killing himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal C
offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined
under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :-
“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a
thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or D
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy,
and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing E
of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the F
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.—Whoever either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
G
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to
bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the
case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the
word ‘instigate’ as under :-
1
(2001) 9 SCC 618 H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act.”
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation
with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In
the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.2, it was
B observed as under:-
“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
C intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
and that act must have been intended to push the deceased
D into such a position that he committed suicide.”
18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.3, while considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with
Section 306 IPC has observed as under :-
E
“47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the
High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing
an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART
I 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating
agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the
F investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court.
On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if
it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing
and the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to
quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim
orders as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High
G
Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to
enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the
parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly

2
(2010) 12 SCC 190
3
H (2021) 2 SCC 427
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 405
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim A
bail has been made out. The settled principles which have
been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court
in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal(Bhajan Lal) include a
situation where the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
B
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused. This legal
position was recently reiterated in a decision by a two-judge
Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of
Maharashtra.
48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High C
Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any
evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High
Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992
Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I 34
fundamental issue which needed to be considered while D
dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the
Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, by
its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed
the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month
later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant‘s prayer
for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under Section E
439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty.
The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whether
the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case
within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task.”
F
19. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its
Inspector of Police4, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded
the ingredients of Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to
aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The G
act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using
abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment
of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased
4
(2019) 3 SCC 315 H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/
abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be
convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”
20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of
a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh & Ors. Vs.
B State of Haryana5, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 306 IPC in the following words:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission
of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of
C cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence
of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment
of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission
D of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment
of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there be such action on the part of the accused which compels
the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a
E person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another
or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would
F be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and
the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to
G induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit
H 5
(2019) 17 SCC 301
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 407
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section A
306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the
self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the
part of the accused in such cases would be examined with
B
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if
the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger,
a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or C
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human
behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own
facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the
D
deceased.”
21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao
Bhagat and Anr.,6 wherein the judgement rendered by the High Court
quashing the FIR under Section 482 was set aside. In the said case, an
FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son and E
daughter-in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the
accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of
the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the
son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stop
calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there F
was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused
and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his
family life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned
and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by
the accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court
and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed G
by this Court and made the following observations:-
“We now consider the facts of the present case. There are
definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on
6
(2019) 13 SCC 598 H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing
her which allegations are supported by the statements of the
mother and the wife of the victim recorded during
investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the
suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the
first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the
B
fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against
first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering
into question whether the first respondent had the requisite
intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide.
At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed
C and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court
ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was
requisite mental element or intention on part of the
respondent.”
In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear
D indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the
respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did
not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a
matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide.
22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide
E under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and
mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would
not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on
the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.
Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the
F allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected
to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every
case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration
G the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the
alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.
23. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert
to the facts of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offence
under Section 306 IPC exist, even prima-facie, to continue with the
H investigations.
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 409
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

24. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental A
pressure because the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him in
the presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school on
25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the complainant. When
he returned from the school, again he was under very much pressure
and on being enquired told that today again he was harassed and insulted
B
by the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was informed that the
parents have been called to school next day and this brought him under
further severe pressure and tension.
25. In the First Information Report and as also the statement of
the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the
appellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any C
details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which
the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted.
26. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC before
the High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which
unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less D
analyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in the
petition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to the
students from 1st to 5th standard and being a member of the Disciplinary
Committee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in
the school which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee E
that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and
moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also
stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his
classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number
of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes
and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission F
and a warning was given to him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking
classes and again the appellant issued him a warning and on account of
persistent act of bunking classes, reported the same to the Principal of
the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school.
27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. G
It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being
attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or
not attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher
or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline,
in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of
harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason.
A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline
by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities
of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation
or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.
B
28. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ an old saying may have lost
its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not
recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school
authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It
is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty
C under Section 24 (e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and
guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to
learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information
about the child.
D 29. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly
bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts,
brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents
on telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has been
attributed to the appellant either in the First Information Report or in the
E statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been stated
in the alleged suicide note. The alleged suicide note only records insofar
as, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY
SCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or
instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offence
for which he is being charged.
F
30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of
indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of
Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student
for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student
who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher
G be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of
abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.
31. Our answer to the said question is ‘No’.
32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher
and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without their
H
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 411
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any A
intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own
pupil, no mens rea can be attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment
is conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the
absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the
essential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do not exist.
B
33. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court
while mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC on
the ground that FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
34. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under
Section 482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the C
Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial
pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself
imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise D
of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in
the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred
upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would E
be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
35. The following observations made by this Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. 7 may be relevant to
note at this stage:- F
“The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the
High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The G
High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in
civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public
purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The
7
(1977) 2 SCC 699 H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature.”
36. Again in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.8, this Court observed in
B paragraph 7 as under :-
“7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution
at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied
by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations
as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the
C court to take into consideration any special features which
appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient
and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be
utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of
the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,
D therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing
a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking
into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the
proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
37. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.9, this
E Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to specify an
exhaustive list of the cases, where such power should be exercised.
However, by way of illustration, the Court laid down the following
categories of cases wherein such power could be exercised either to
F prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
G
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
8
(1988) 1 SCC 692
9
H (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 413
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an A
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out B
a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section C
155(2)of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. D
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing E
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
F
grudge.”
38. In the case of M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. &
Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr.10, this Court observed as
under :-
“It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any G
action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion
of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance
of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of
10
(2005) 1 SCC 122 H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to
be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in
B
toto.”
39. Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute
examination of the same, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric
document, penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the same
also suggests the hyper-sensitive temperament of the deceased which
C led him to take such an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by
the accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce
a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.
40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-facie,
in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out any such
D circumstances showing any such act or intention that he intended to
bring about the suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even think
that the appellant had any intention to place the deceased in such
circumstances that there was no option available to him except to commit
suicide.
E 41. In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite
nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to
ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly
a pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly
suffer great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations
of irrelevant nature.
F
42. Bearing in mind the factual aspects of the case delineated
herein above and the legal principles enunciated by a series of
pronouncements of this Court discussed herein above, we are of the
view that High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under
section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Report in exercise
G of its inherent jurisdiction.
43. We are conscious of the pain and suffering of the complainant
who is the mother of the deceased boy. It is also very unfortunate that a
young life has been lost in this manner, but our sympathies and the pain
and suffering of the complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy,
H much less a criminal prosecution.
GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 415
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

44. In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned judgment A
of the High Court dated 30.04.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby
set aside. The First Information Report registered as Case No. 162 of
2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South), stands quashed.
45. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
B

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H