1 CGHC010315482026 2026:CGHC:37003-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2181 of 2026 Arun Kumar Gupta @ Lala Gupta S/o- Visheshwar Prasad Gupta, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Girhuldih, Police Outpost Kerju, P.S. Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o- Late Shivlal Gupta, Aged About 45 Years R/o- Village Sureshpur, P.S. Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayer :- “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased quash/set aside the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2025 and further be pleased to. Quash/set aside the complete Chargesheet bearing No. 94/2026 dated 12.04.2026, in FIR No. 64/2026 dated 20.02.2026, and the entire consequent criminal proceedings be also quashed/set aside in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the father of one Nikhil Gupta (since deceased), who allegedly had an illicit relationship with his aunt, Smt. Neha Gupta. On account of this alleged relationship, rumours spread in the village community, which caused Nikhil Gupta mental distress. As a result, on 20.06.2025, Nikhil Gupta died by suicide by consumption of poisonous substance. It is alleged by the prosecution that, being aggrieved by the death of his son, the petitioner told the said Neha Gupta words to the effect that his son had died because of her and that she too had no right to live. It is alleged that this utterance coupled with the surrounding harassment, drove Neha Gupta to take her own life, and that she died by hanging at her matrimonial home on 19.08.2025. 4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, an FIR being Crime No. 64/2026 was registered on 20.02.2026 at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, against the petitioner under Section 100 of the BNS, alleging abetment of the suicide of Neha Gupta. The petitioner apprehending his arrest had approached this Hon ble 3 High Court, which was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was formally arrested on 06.04.2026 at 20:00 hours and was thereafter released on bail. 5. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 94/2026 has been filed against the petitioner on 12.04.2026, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 2943/2026, culminating into Sessions Case No. 110/2026, presently pending before the learned 6th ASJ, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) 6. Being aggrieved by the said Charge Sheet dated 12.04.2026 and the consequent proceedings in Sessions Case No. 110/2026, the petitioner has to approach this Court by way of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the aforequoted prayer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide are not made out. It is contended that the prosecution case rests principally upon an alleged utterance made by the petitioner after the death of his son, Nikhil Gupta, stating that his son had died because of Smt. Neha Gupta and that she too had no right to live. According to learned counsel, the said words, even if accepted, were uttered in a state of grief, anguish and emotional distress arising out of the death of the petitioner's son and cannot, by themselves, constitute instigation or intentional aid to commit 4 suicide. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any continuous harassment, threat, coercion or other positive act on the part of the petitioner intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased left behind a suicide note, but significantly, there is no allegation therein against the petitioner of threat, instigation or abetment; the only reference to him is that she was "sorry to him". Learned counsel submits that there is also no proximate nexus between the alleged utterance and the subsequent suicide. It is further submitted that the prosecution itself alleges, in the separate case arising out of the death of Nikhil Gupta, that Smt. Neha Gupta and her mother, Smt. Sarita Gupta, had harassed Nikhil, which contributed to his suicide. The petitioner, being the father of Nikhil, was naturally aggrieved by his son's death, and the alleged statement attributed to him has to be viewed in that factual and emotional background. Learned counsel submits that the mere fact that Smt. Neha Gupta subsequently committed suicide cannot automatically establish abetment on the part of the petitioner, particularly when the suicide note does not attribute her decision to any act or omission of the petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the requisite mens rea or any proximate and positive act capable of constituting instigation within the meaning of the law relating to abetment of suicide. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the 5 petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel accordingly prays that, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the charge-sheet dated 12.04.2026 and the consequential proceedings in Sessions Case No. 110/2026 be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the prosecution has collected sufficient material during investigation to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence of abetment of suicide. It is contended that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the death of his son Nikhil Gupta, specifically told the deceased, Smt. Neha Gupta, that his son had died because of her and that she too had no right to live. According to learned State counsel, the said statement was made in the backdrop of the circumstances prevailing between the parties and had a direct bearing upon the mental condition of the deceased, who subsequently committed suicide. It is submitted that whether the said utterance amounted to instigation and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite intention are matters which require appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Learned State counsel further submits that the suicide note cannot be considered in isolation from the other material collected during investigation. The absence of a specific allegation against 6 the petitioner in the suicide note does not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case, particularly when statements of witnesses and other surrounding circumstances allegedly support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, pursuant to which the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or undertake a mini-trial to determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The prosecution has disclosed a prima facie case, and the questions relating to the circumstances in which the alleged statement was made, the intention of the petitioner, and the nexus between his conduct and the suicide of the deceased are matters to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court after appreciation of evidence. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no ground for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offence of abetment of suicide warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this 7 Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 13. The law relating to abetment of suicide is well settled. The offence of abetment necessarily involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person to commit an act. There must be a positive act on the part of the accused coupled with the requisite mens rea. 14. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court explained that "instigation" means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage another person to do an act. The Court further held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion, without intending the consequence to actually follow, would not ordinarily constitute instigation. These principles have consistently been followed in subsequent decisions. 15. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Supreme Court held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person and that there must be a positive act on the part of the accused which is intended to push the deceased into such a position that the deceased sees no option except to commit suicide. The requirement of mens rea is, therefore, an essential ingredient of the offence. 16. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, as well as in subsequent decisions. In Prabhat Kumar v. State of 8 Haryana, 2025 INSC 990, the Supreme Court reiterated that even where there is an allegation of continuous harassment, there must be a proximate act which can clearly demonstrate that the suicide was the direct consequence of such conduct. The Court emphasized that the requisite mens rea cannot merely be presumed and that there must be a positive act of instigation or intentional aid. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has attributed a specific utterance to the petitioner, namely, that his son had died because of Smt. Neha Gupta and that she too had no right to live. It is the case of the prosecution that the said utterance was made in the backdrop of the death of Nikhil Gupta and that it contributed to the subsequent suicide of Smt. Neha Gupta. The petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the alleged words were merely an expression of grief and anger on account of the death of his son and were never intended to instigate the deceased to take her own life. 18. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine conclusively whether the alleged words were uttered in a fit of anger or whether they were accompanied by the requisite intention to instigate the deceased. The circumstances in which the statement was allegedly made, the evidence of the witnesses, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the alleged utterance upon the deceased are all matters which require appreciation of evidence. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS 9 cannot ordinarily undertake a meticulous appreciation of such disputed factual matters as if conducting a trial. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed considerable reliance upon the suicide note left by Smt. Neha Gupta, contending that the same contains no allegation of threat, instigation or abetment against the petitioner and merely records that she was "sorry to him". The said circumstance undoubtedly constitutes a relevant piece of material for the defence. However, the absence of a specific allegation against the petitioner in the suicide note cannot, at the present stage, be treated as conclusive of his innocence when the prosecution has attributed a specific act to him and has relied upon other material collected during investigation. The evidentiary value of the suicide note, when considered along with the statements of witnesses and other surrounding circumstances, is a matter for the learned Trial Court. 20. It is also relevant that the separate criminal case arising out of the suicide of Nikhil Gupta, in which Smt. Sarita Gupta has been arrayed as an accused, relates to a different occurrence. The fact that the prosecution alleges harassment of Nikhil Gupta by Smt. Neha Gupta and her mother may constitute a relevant circumstance in the petitioner's defence; however, the same cannot, by itself, completely rule out the prosecution case concerning the subsequent suicide of Smt. Neha Gupta. The two 10 occurrences are required to be examined on their own facts and on the evidence led before the Trial Court. 21. At the same time, we are conscious of the settled position that mere allegation of harassment or an unpleasant exchange, without the requisite intention and a positive and proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, would not constitute abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that even where allegations of harassment are made, the prosecution must establish a proximate act demonstrating that the suicide was the direct consequence of the accused's conduct; mens rea cannot be presumed. However, the present proceedings have reached the stage where investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. The prosecution has attributed a specific statement to the petitioner and seeks to establish its connection with the subsequent suicide. In these circumstances, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the prosecution case is so inherently improbable or manifestly absurd that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 22. The question whether the alleged statement constituted mere expression of grief and anger or amounted to instigation; whether the petitioner possessed the requisite mens rea; whether there was any other conduct attributable to him; and whether there existed a proximate nexus between his conduct and the suicide of Smt. Neha Gupta are all matters which can appropriately be determined after the parties lead evidence before the learned Trial 11 Court. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to substitute a pre-trial appreciation of evidence for the trial itself. 23. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.04.2026 or the consequential proceedings in Sessions Case No. 110/2026. The present case does not, at this stage, fall within the exceptional category warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 24. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the consideration of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court shall decide the case independently, strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 25. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible grounds available to him before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The learned Trial Court shall consider such contentions in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra