CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 12.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 26.08.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 26.08.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Isha Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. R. K. Arya, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.58 dated 28.04.2008, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, whereby the protest petition filed by MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -2- respondent No.2 was disposed of and cognizance was taken against the petitioner and other accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 alleging therein that victim/deceased Sardul Singh was his brother. On 25.04.2008, the petitioner Gurcharan Singh came to the house of Sardul Singh, took his mobile phone and made a call from it to the house of Sham Singh, where he made obscene remarks to Sham Singh's wife. Thereafter, Sham Singh called back on the said mobile phone and Sardul Singh told him that it was his number. It was further alleged that thereafter Sham Singh, Major Singh and Gurvinder Singh made a complaint against Sardul Singh at Police Post Seeto Gunno. Gurcharan Singh was called to a Panchayat at Village Himmatpura, wherein the petitioner insisted that victim had made a call to his wife. It was further alleged that Sham Singh, Major Singh and Gurvinder Singh also held Sardul Singh responsible for the incident. On the same evening Sardul Singh told his brother/complainant Param Pal Singh that he was feeling humiliated as he had been defamed and was unable to show his face to anyone. He also told the complainant that it was better to die than to live in such circumstances and that he could not live fearing defamation caused by the allegations made against him. 3. As per the further allegations, on the night of 27.04.2008, Sardul Singh went to the house of Gurdeep Singh to sleep. On the morning of 28.04.2008, when the complainant went to enquire about him, he was informed that Sardul Singh had returned home during the night to take his telephone but MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -3- had not returned thereafter. At about 9:00 a.m., the complainant came to know that the dead body of Sardul Singh was hanging from a tree in a field in Village Tarmala. He reached the spot along with others and found the dead body of the victim hanging from the tree. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the petitioner and other accused were found innocent. The police thereafter recommended filing of a cancellation report. Respondent No.2, however, filed a protest petition alleging that the investigation was not fair and that important witnesses had not been examined. He relied upon, inter alia, the statement of Balwant Singh, who claimed to have seen the accused manhandling Sardool Singh on the night of 27.04.2008. The learned SDJM, Malout, after considering the protest petition and the material on record, noticed certain discrepancies and suspicious circumstances in the investigation, particularly regarding the call details and non-examination of Balwant Singh. The learned Magistrate accordingly declined to accept the cancellation report and, vide order dated 03.02.2017, took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and directed issuance of notice to the accused. Aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been filed. 5. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had made a phone call from the mobile phone of deceased Sardool Singh to Manjit Kaur. However, during investigation, the said allegation was found to be false and it was specifically concluded that the call had been made by Sardool Singh himself. The investigation was conducted by the police at different levels and the petitioner was found innocent. There is no material to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -4- show that the petitioner abetted the suicide by Sardool Singh. Mere allegations regarding a phone call or a dispute between the parties cannot constitute abetment of suicide. It is also argued that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, failed to consider the detailed inquiry report and the material collected during investigation which exonerated the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate adopted an incorrect procedure while dealing with the protest petition. After filing of the cancellation report, the Magistrate proceeded on the basis of the protest petition and recorded statements of witnesses, but thereafter again took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It is argued that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was legally unsustainable. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has submitted that the FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.2 against the petitioner and three other accused on the allegation that they had abetted Sardool Singh to commit suicide. During investigation, all the accused, including the present petitioner, were found innocent and the police prepared a cancellation report. The investigation in the FIR was properly conducted. The inquiry report and the fact that the petitioner was found innocent are matters of record. It is also submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner relates mainly to the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate while disposing of the protest petition and taking cognizance. 7. Reply has been filed by respondent No.2, who is the main contesting party to this petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts. It is argued that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -5- petitioner was rightly named in the FIR as the person who had taken Sardool Singh's mobile phone and made the objectionable call to Manjit Kaur. Learned counsel further submits that the police investigation was not fair. The important witness Balwant Singh, who saw the petitioner and the other accused manhandling Sardool Singh on 27.04.2008 and dragging him towards the house of Sham Singh, was not examined during investigation. It is argued that the cancellation report was therefore rightly challenged by filing a protest petition. It is further submitted that the complainant examined himself and other witnesses in support of the protest petition, including Balwant Singh and Jaspreet Kaur, wife of the deceased. The learned Magistrate noticed several suspicious circumstances in the investigation, including the manner in which the call details were dealt with and the non-examination of the alleged spot witness, and thereafter took cognizance under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel thus submits that there is sufficient material requiring the petitioner to face trial and that the petition for quashing of the FIR and the summoning order deserves to be dismissed. 8. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 9. Before considering the challenge to the impugned order, it would be appropriate to examine the legal position relating to the offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC makes abetment of suicide punishable. The expression “abetment” has been defined in Section 107 IPC. Thus, for bringing a case within the ambit of Section 306 IPC, it is not sufficient to establish merely that the accused had some connection with the deceased or that there had been a quarrel, dispute or unpleasant incident between them. There must be material to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide, or had MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -6- intentionally aided the commission of suicide. The element of intention is, therefore, of considerable importance. In other words, the prosecution must be able to demonstrate the existence of the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused. There has to be something on record from which it can reasonably be inferred that the accused intended, by his act or omission, to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to take the extreme step. Mere knowledge that a particular act may cause annoyance, humiliation or distress to another person cannot, in every case, be equated with an intention to abet suicide. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750, has held that in order to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It has further been held that there must be an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no other option, and such act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position. Similarly, in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 196, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the concept of “instigation” and observed that there must be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the victim. Thus, some positive act or conduct on the part of the accused, having the requisite intention and nexus with the suicide, is required. 11. At the same time, it is equally well settled that every quarrel, every act of harassment or every instance of discord cannot be treated as abetment of suicide. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that the Court must exercise great care while dealing with allegations of abetment of suicide and must keep in view the possibility that MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -7- a victim may be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which are common in life. The same principle was reiterated in S.S. Cheema v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the allegations in the present case, it is apparent that the principal allegation against the petitioner, as emerging from the FIR, is that he had taken the mobile phone of deceased Sardool Singh and had made a call from the same to the house of Sham Singh, during which obscene remarks were allegedly made to his wife. It is further alleged that thereafter a complaint was made against Sardool Singh and the matter was discussed before the Panchayat. The deceased is stated to have felt humiliated and to have expressed before his brother that he was unable to face people and that it was better to die than to live in such circumstances. If the matter were to be examined only on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it would certainly be difficult to hold that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide stand established against the petitioner. The making of a telephone call, even if the allegation against the petitioner is accepted at its face value, does not by itself establish that the petitioner intended to provoke, incite or encourage Sardool Singh to commit suicide. Likewise, the fact that the deceased felt humiliated on account of the incident cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea to drive him to commit suicide. However, the matter does not rest only upon the allegations contained in the FIR. The complainant challenged the cancellation report by filing a protest petition and specifically relied upon the statement of Balwant Singh. According to the case set up by respondent No.2, Balwant Singh had witnessed the petitioner and the other accused allegedly manhandling Sardool Singh on the night of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -8- 27.04.2008 and dragging him towards the house of Sham Singh. The learned Magistrate also noticed certain discrepancies and circumstances relating to the investigation, including the manner in which the call details had been dealt with and the non-examination of the said witness during investigation. 13. The aforementioned aspect assumes significance because the alleged incident of manhandling is stated to have occurred immediately before the deceased committed suicide. Whether the statement of Balwant Singh is truthful, whether his presence at the spot is established, whether the incident actually occurred in the manner alleged and, most importantly, whether such conduct on the part of the petitioner amounted to instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 IPC are all questions which require appreciation of evidence. Such an exercise cannot appropriately be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. 14. It is also required to be kept in view that the police, during investigation, had found the petitioner and the other accused innocent and had recommended cancellation of the FIR. The petitioner has placed considerable reliance upon the said investigation and upon the conclusion that the alleged call had, in fact, been made by the deceased himself. However, submission of a cancellation report does not confer any indefeasible right upon the accused to have the criminal proceedings terminated. The Magistrate is not bound to mechanically accept the conclusion of the investigating agency. The Magistrate is required to independently examine the final report and the material collected during investigation and then adopt a course permissible in law. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -9- 15. The law in this regard is well settled by a catena of judgments as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported as 2001(7) Supreme Court Cases 536, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had listed three options opened to the Magistrate to exercise when a final report is submitted by the police i.e. (a) to accept the report; (b) to disagree with the report and issue process under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. or in the alternative, he can take cognizance of the original complaint and examine the complaint and witnesses and, therefore, issue process to the accused if he is of the opinion that the case should be proceeded with; (c) to exercise power under 173(8) Cr.P.C and order further investigation to be made by the police. Reference can also be made to Tularam v. Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2401, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the police, after making an investigation, sent a report that no case was made out against the accused, the Magistrate could ignore the conclusion drawn by the police and take cognizance of the case under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of material collected during investigation and issue process or in the alternative he could take cognizance of the original complaint and examine the complainant and his witnesses and thereafter issue process to the accused, if he was of opinion that the case should be proceeded with. It is also well settled that mere filing of a protest petition does not, by itself, require the Magistrate to treat the matter as a complaint. At the same time, if the protest petition itself satisfies the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat it as such and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for a complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated these principles in Mukhtar Zaidi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -10- 318, while referring to Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 27. Therefore, the mere fact that respondent No.2 had filed a protest petition cannot, by itself, render the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. illegal. 16. From the sequence of events emerging from the record, it appears that after submission of the cancellation report, respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and the learned Magistrate proceeded to record statements of witnesses in support thereof. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate declined to accept the cancellation report and took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The difficulty, therefore, is not merely that cognizance was taken despite the filing of a protest petition. Such a course is legally permissible where the Magistrate, upon consideration of the police papers and the material collected during investigation, disagrees with the investigating agency. The difficulty arises from the manner in which the material brought on record through the protest proceedings appears to have been utilized. If the learned Magistrate intended to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the basis for such cognizance had to be the police report and the material collected during investigation. If, on the other hand, the learned Magistrate intended to rely upon the statements recorded in support of the protest petition as material constituting a complaint case, the procedure applicable to a complaint under the Code was required to be followed. The two courses cannot be mixed in a manner which deprives the accused of the procedure prescribed by law. 17. The aforementioned distinction is important in the present case because the statement of Balwant Singh as recorded in Court assumes considerable significance in the order of the learned Magistrate. According to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -11- respondent No.2, he is the witness who had allegedly seen the petitioner and the other accused manhandling the deceased shortly before his death. If that statement was not part of the material collected during the police investigation and was recorded before the Magistrate only in support of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate was required to clearly determine the legal course to be followed before relying upon such material for proceeding against the petitioner. The impugned order does not sufficiently explain this distinction or the precise statutory course which was adopted by the learned Magistrate. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained in its present form. This Court is of the considered view that the appropriate course would be to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the cancellation report and the protest petition in accordance with law. 18. It is also necessary to clarify that this Court is not accepting the case of the petitioner that the allegations against him are wholly false or that the police investigation must necessarily be accepted. Equally, this Court is not holding that the material relied upon by respondent No.2 is sufficient to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC. At this stage, it would be inappropriate for this Court to undertake an appreciation of the statement of Balwant Singh or other witnesses or to determine whether the alleged conduct of the petitioner amounted to instigation or intentional aid. Those questions are required to be considered by the competent Court in accordance with law and on the basis of the material legally available before it. 19. The same principle applies to the allegation regarding the telephone call. The petitioner relies upon the investigation conducted by the police to contend that the call had actually been made by the deceased himself, whereas MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -12- respondent No.2 relies upon the allegations in the FIR and the material placed through the protest petition. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot undertake a comparative appreciation of such disputed factual material or conduct a mini-trial for determining which version is correct. Thus, while the principles governing Section 306 IPC certainly require the prosecution to establish the requisite intention, instigation or intentional aid, the existence or otherwise of those ingredients in the present case cannot be finally determined merely on the basis of the rival versions placed before this Court. The allegations relating to the conduct of the petitioner immediately preceding the suicide, particularly the allegation of manhandling supported by the statement attributed to Balwant Singh, are matters which require consideration in the manner prescribed by law. The presence of such material is sufficient to hold that the case does not fall in that category where the High Court can, at the threshold, conclusively hold that continuation of the proceedings would necessarily amount to an abuse of the process of law. 20. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be made to face proceedings pursuant to the impugned order when the very procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate requires reconsideration. The appropriate balance would, therefore, be achieved by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 and restoring the matter to the stage of consideration of the cancellation report and the protest petition. The learned Magistrate shall, thereafter, consider the cancellation report, the police papers and the material collected during investigation, as also the protest petition, if legally required to be considered, and shall adopt one of the courses permissible in law. If the Magistrate finds that the material collected during investigation does not disclose a prima facie case, the cancellation report MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -13- may be dealt with accordingly. If, upon consideration of the police material, the Magistrate finds sufficient ground to disagree with the investigating agency, cognizance may be taken in accordance with Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. If the protest petition is to be treated as a complaint, the procedure prescribed for dealing with a complaint shall be followed. The Magistrate shall pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order. 21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to determining the appropriate course to be adopted at this stage and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion either regarding the correctness of the cancellation report or regarding the culpability of the petitioner or the other accused. The learned Magistrate shall independently consider the matter and shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court. 22. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed. The order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the cancellation report and the protest petition, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 23. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.58 dated 28.04.2008, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, is not accepted at this stage and is left open to be considered, if so advised, after the learned Magistrate has passed a fresh order in accordance with law. 24. Since the FIR is of the year 2008, the learned Magistrate shall endeavour to consider the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18423-2017 (O&M) -14- 25. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 26.08.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.26 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document