IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.128 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Narotma Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.. For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of the instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) for quashing of FIR No. 165/2025, dated 05.12.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), as well as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, which may be relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand, are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Mr. Mann Singh, who alleged that Smt. Narotma Devi, who at the relevant time was working as a teacher at SS Sai School, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, had instigated/abetted his minor daughter, namely Reeta Devi, to commit suicide. He alleged that on 28.11.2025, he had gone out of station on account of some personal work, whereas his daughter, named hereinabove, had gone to school at 8:30 a.m, but at 3:30 PM, his son Pawan Kumar telephonically informed him that Reeta had consumed poison. He stated that he took his daughter to Shri Kant Hospital, Khera, in his own vehicle, where she remained admitted till 29.11.2025. He alleged that his daughter, Reeta, disclosed to him that her teacher namely Smt. Narotma Devi, had slapped and humiliated her for not performing good in a test, and as such, she consumed poison. After one day of her discharge from the hospital detailed hereinabove, the condition of Reeta Devi worsened and she was taken to PGI, but unfortunately, she died there. In afore background, FIR came to be lodged against the accused after a delay of six days 3 from the date of the occurrence, and three days after the death of the deceased. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a case came to be registered against the accused, who was subsequently ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2991 of 2025. 3. Though challan stands filed in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing and setting aside of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law. 4. Precisely, the case of the accused, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel representing the accused, is that no case much less under Section 108 of BNS is made out against the accused. He has submitted that though the deceased was alive for five days after the date of the occurrence, but during afore period, no statement of the deceased was recorded, rather complainant lodged FIR with the police after her death. He further submitted that bare perusal of Section 108 of BNS itself suggests that to constitute the offence under aforesaid provision of law, it is essential to establish that the accused had the intention to instigate/abet the deceased to 4 commit suicide. However, in the case at hand, no evidence available on record to prove instigation/abetment, if any, at the instance of the accused, rather material on record suggests that accused was only discharging her official duty and to ensure a bright future of the students, had scolded them so that next time they would come well- prepared for the test. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that no illegality can be said to have been committed, while invoking Section 108-B of BNS against the accused for her having instigated/abetted the deceased, Reeta, to commit suicide. He submitted that since on 28.11.2025, the accused not only slapped the deceased, but also humiliated her in the presence of other students, she was compelled to take the drastic step of finishing her life by committing suicide. Mr. Panwar further submitted that otherwise also, present petition is not maintainable because the factum of instigation/abetment, if any, at the hands of the accused can be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He submitted that in case the prayer made on behalf of the accused is accepted, the respondent-State would be pre-empted from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter-submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC (now 528 of BNSS). 8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if 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. 9. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under 6 Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the 7 accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled as Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30) 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, 8 inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 9 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 11. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that 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/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings. 10 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under: 16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 20). Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, 11 and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, the relevant para whereof reads as under:- “7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal5, this Court observed. “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: 12 (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal6 conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12 SCC 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 “102. (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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police 13 officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). …….… (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 grudge.” In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC3100 (“Dhruvaram Sonar”) : “13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers.” 14. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under:- “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has 14 summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 15 (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 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 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. (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 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 a private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the 16 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.” 10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing 17 criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).” 15. Aforesaid law, clearly stipulates that court can exercise power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash criminal proceedings, in cases, 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. 16. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à- vis factual matrix of the case. 17. Careful perusal of FIR, sought to be quashed, clearly reveals that on 28.11.2025, the deceased, Reeta, was admitted at Shri Kant Hospital, Khera, with a history of having consumed poison. On 29.11.2025, above named deceased was discharged from the hospital. Allegedly, on afore date, the deceased disclosed to her father 18 that she consumed poison after her being slapped and humiliated by her teacher i.e. accused, for her not having performed well in the test. Though factum with regard to alleged instigation/abetment, if any, at the hands of the accused had come to the knowledge of the complainant on 29.11.2025, but he failed to lodge the FIR till 05.12.2025. Interestingly, in the case at hand, deceased Reeta expired on 02.12.2025 at Chandigarh, but even at that stage, no complaint was made by the complainant; rather, the same came to be made after four days of the death of the deceased. No plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua delay in lodging of the FIR. In case it had come to the knowledge of the complainant that his daughter consumed poison after her being scolded and humiliated by the accused on 28.11.2025, he ought to have filed the FIR on the same day. Record reveals that other students in the deceased's class unanimously stated before the police that the accused, being a teacher, had simply scolded not only the deceased, but other students also, who had not scored good marks in the test. The students also stated that the accused treats every student equally and she has never singled out any student for humiliation or harassment. 18. Moreover, the medical evidence adduced on record nowhere suggests injuries, if any, to the deceased person. Though postmortem report indicates the factum of the deceased having 19 consumed poison, but certainly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased consumed poison on account of her being scolded or humiliated by the teacher for her not having scored good marks in the test. Admittedly, the deceased did not leave any suicide note, rather, information with regard to humiliation or scolding came to the notice of the father of the deceased through his son, who was also studying in the same class under the same teacher. It is the case of the prosecution that the brother of the deceased along with other students was also scolded for his/their having not prepared for the test, but he did not choose to take the extreme step as allegedly taken by the deceased. The accused, who, being a teacher, is otherwise responsible for disciplining the students, could have never imagined that the scolding given by her would result in such a tragedy. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 108 of BNS, which reads as under: “108. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision of law clearly reveals that to attract the aforesaid provision, the intention of the accused to instigate/abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no evidence has been 20 adduced on record by the investigating officer to prove instigation/ abetment, if any, at the instance of the accused, rather, as per the own case of the prosecution, the accused was discharging her official duty and to ensure a bright future for the students, she scolded them so that next time they become serious for the test. “Whether the alleged act of scolding by the accused, who is a teacher, can be an abetment/instigation,” has been very aptly answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thangavel Vs. State, through Inspector of Police & Anr., 2025 Livelaw (SC) 659, wherein it came to be ruled that no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such a tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life. 20. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court had an occasion to deal with a situation, where one student consumed poison after being reprimanded by teachers, i.e. in CRMMO No.728 of 2021, titled Ashish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. This court, having taken note of various judgments passed by the Honorable Apex Court, held as under: “16. Leaving everything aside, contents of the suicide note left behind by Ms. Asha Rani, if tested/analyzed in light of other material available/collected on record by the investigating agency, especially, statement made by the students of college, case of the prosecution is bound to fail and hence, no fruitful purpose would be 21 served by allowing such proceedings to continue. To the contrary, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, harassment and mental agony, if criminal proceeding in the present case, which is manifestly attended with malafide and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores, is allowed to continue. 17. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case (Geo Varghese v. STte of Rajasthan and Anr, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 361) where student committed suicide after being reprimanded by the teacher/administration categorically held that reprimanding student would not amount to investigation to commit suicide. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: 27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. 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 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. 22 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 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. ………………………. 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 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. 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. …………………………………. 40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-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 23 deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except to commit suicide. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that 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 intentional aid to the commission of a suicide by a student. In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC do not exist. Apart from above, the Hon’ble apex Court has held that victim committed suicide allegedly for being reprimanded for repeatedly bunking classes. Reading of victims suicide note shows that same was penned by immature and hypersensitive mind, thus act of accused being teacher would not ordinarily induce a circumstances to a student to commit suicide. In the case at hand, petitioner herein being fellow student only made complaint to the teacher with regard to indecent behavior of the deceased Asha Rani and her friend Alka Rani, but such act of him by no stretch of imagination can be said to be instigation or abetment to constitute an offence if any, punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Since, there is no element of abetment, case under Section 306 of IPC made against the petitioner is otherwise bound to fail. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of Section 306 IPC “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 24 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 18. 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 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 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 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.” 19. Similarly, the dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 9 SCC 618 has defined the word ‘instigate’ as “instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.” 25 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 has dealt with scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC. Relevant pars of the aforesaid judgment read 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 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 into such a position that he committed suicide.” 21. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315, the Hon’lbe Apex Court has held as under: “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 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 to commit suicide. Unless the 26 ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2019 17 SCC 301, has held that 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 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 behavior 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 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 person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 23. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide, rather there should be evidence suggestive of the fact that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. However, in the case at hand, as has been discussed 27 herein above, there is no evidence at all available against the petitioner that he insulted the deceased by using abusive language that too with an intention to instigate her to commit suicide and as such, no case, if any, under Section 306 IPC is otherwise made out against him. Contents of FIR and final report filed under Section 173, if taken to be correct on their face value, do not prima facie constitute the offence against the accused. Apart from above, neither FIR nor final challan under Section 173 Cr.PC disclose offence, if any, punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. Leaving everything aside, there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. 21. It is quite apparent from the exposition of law that to prove abetment/instigation in terms of Section 108 of BNS, prosecution is under obligation to bring evidence suggestive of the fact that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 22. Admittedly, in the case at hand, as has been discussed above hereinabove, no evidence worth credence is available on record that the accused, who at the relevant time was discharging duty of teacher, insulted the deceased by using abusive language that too with an intention to instigate her to commit suicide, rather, she with the intent to make the deceased realize to perform good in test, merely scolded her. 28 23. As has been taken note hereinabove, the deceased was not only the student, who was scolded by the accused, rather, majority of the students, including the brother of the deceased, who was also studying in the same class, were scolded by the accused. 24. Contents of FIR and final report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, if taken to be correct on the face value, do not prima facie constitute the offence against the accused under Section 108 of BNS. There is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the accused with the offence alleged to have been committed by her, and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case, FIR sought to be quashed, is permitted to sustain. 25. Having scanned entire material adduced on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that evidentiary material on record, if accepted, would not reasonably connect the accused with the crime. Neither there is sufficient evidence to conclude that on the date of alleged incident, accused scolded the deceased with intention to instigate her to commit suicide nor there is any material available on record to suggest that on the date of occurrence, accused only picked up deceased for scolding, rather, she, being teacher, scolded all the students, who had not performed well in test. 26. Since basic ingredients of Section 108-B of BNS are missing, as has been discussed hereinabove in detail, chances of 29 conviction, if any, of the accused, are very remote and bleak and in case, FIR sought to be quashed, as well as consequential proceedings pending in competent court are allowed to sustain, accused would unnecessarily be put to ordeal of a protracted trial, which is bound to fail. 27. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration FIR No. 165/2025, dated 05.12.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2026 (sunil)