$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010280152022 + CRL.REV.P. 464/2022 THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ......Petitioner Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State SI Rakesh Kumar, PS Nihal Vihar. versus KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS PRINCE AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K Mittal, Mr Paramjeet Singh, Ms Himani Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by ASJ (SFTC) RC-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Impugned Order”) in relation to FIR No. 93/2021 under Sections 306, 120B, 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) registered at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi, whereby the respondents/accused were discharged. 2. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is sufficient material on record to warrant the prosecution of the respondents. It is contended that, at the stage of framing of charges, the learned Trial Court ought not to have discharged the respondents, as the material available raises a strong suspicion regarding their involvement. Learned APP has also drawn the attention of this Court to the alleged suicide note in support of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2026 at 12:12:54 prosecution’s case. 3. The aforesaid submissions are vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the material placed on record does not disclose any act of abetment on the part of the respondents in close proximity to the incident so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of discharge calls for no interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 5. The Supreme Court in Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.1 observed that to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish direct or indirect instigation or incitement by the accused in close proximity to the commission of suicide, coupled with mens rea. Paras. 14-15 of the said decision are extracted as under: “14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2026 at 12:12:54 (Emphasis Supplied) 6. Further in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka2 the Supreme Court held that a broken relationship or a mere refusal to marry, by itself, does not constitute the offence of abetment. Paragraphs 26-31 of the said decision is extracted as under: “26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3 and it was observed as under: 43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidality pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. 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. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide. 27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr. 28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute ‘Instigation’ it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2026 at 12:12:54 circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide. 30. If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused- appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide. 31. Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where no guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7. The material portion of the Impugned Order capturing the crux of the ASJ’s reasoning is extracted as under: “9. In such circumstances, the act of deceased in ending her life is manifestly her reaction to circumstances rather than result of some active advice or instigation by accused Kuldeep. The death of deceased is result of her ambivalence towards the accused Kuldeep and attitude- relevant behavior of hers. 10. The deceased and also the informant-father of deceased, admit that there existed consensual sexual relations between deceased and the accused Kuldeep. The deceased in her alleged suicide note and her father in his information to police. Thus, the sexual intercourse between deceased and accused does not warrant to be considered rape. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2026 at 12:12:54 11. Charge as proposed u/s 376 (2) (n) IPC against accused is not made out. 12. Also, for the discussion made above, no charge u/s 306 IPC is made out against the accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh @ Prince, Paramjeet Kaur, Simran Kaur @ Pinku and Narender Singh. 13. There is no material on record of such inculpatory nature that would warrant that accused Paramjeet Kaur be charged u/s 506 IPC. 13-A. Therefore, all the accused persons namely Kuldeep Singh @ Prince, Paramjeet Kaur, Simran Kaur @ Pinku and Narender Singh are discharged.” 8. On a proper analysis of the material available on record, as well as the legal principles laid in Prakash (Supra) and Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi (Supra), this Court finds no perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. 9. The present petition is, thus, bereft of merit and is dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 2026 Nc/Ksr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2026 at 12:12:54