Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8544 (UTT)

Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-02-16

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. 1. These four matters, though separately numbered and instituted under different statutory provisions, arise out of the same First Information Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, and therefore have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. WPCRL No. 562 of 2024 and WPCRL No. 570 of 2024 have been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the consequential investigation. C-482 No. 1120 of 2024 and C-482 No. 1121 of 2024 have been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the same FIR and subsequent actions taken during investigation. 3. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is that the acts and conduct attributed to the Applicants allegedly drove the deceased to commit suicide, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State’s case is primarily founded upon a purported suicide note, which is stated to implicate the Applicants. 4. During the course of investigation, and as reflected from the remand proceedings dated 01.06.2024, additional penal provisions, namely Sections 385, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, were also incorporated. The Applicants were remanded to custody, and investigation proceeded on the said basis. 5. Since the factual foundation, the FIR, the parties involved, and the legal issues arising for consideration are common, these proceedings were directed to be listed together and were heard analogously from time to time. 6. A central issue that emerged during the pendency of these matters was the authenticity and evidentiary value of the alleged suicide note. In view thereof, this Court, by specific judicial orders, summoned the Investigating Officer to clarify the status of forensic examination pertaining to the handwriting of the deceased. 7. The Investigating Officer placed on record that the suicide note had been sent for forensic examination; however, the Forensic Science Laboratory was unable to arrive at a conclusive opinion regarding authorship due to certain anomalies. It was further stated that efforts were made to obtain cooperation from the son of the deceased for comparative handwriting samples, but the same did not materialize. 8. It was further stated that efforts were made to obtain cooperation from the son of the deceased for comparative handwriting samples, but the same did not materialize. 8. Throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court monitored the progress of investigation and repeatedly called for progress reports, including DVR and CDR reports, while balancing the rights of the Applicants as well as the concerns raised on behalf of the complainant regarding the pace and manner of investigation. 9. Learned State counsel ultimately made a statement before this Court that the final report had been submitted in the matter. Thereafter, arguments were heard at length in all the connected cases. 10. Since all four proceedings emanate from the same FIR, involve identical factual allegations, overlapping legal issues, and common questions of law, they are being decided by this common judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in WPCRL Nos. 562 and 570 of 2024 and learned counsel for the Applicants in C-482 Nos. 1120 and 1121 of 2024 submitted that the very registration of the FIR dated 24.05.2024 is an abuse of the process of law, as the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out even if the allegations contained therein are taken at their face value. 12. It was contended that the FIR is founded primarily upon a purported suicide note, which forms the fulcrum of the prosecution case, yet the said document itself is surrounded by serious doubt. Learned counsel submitted that the forensic examination of the suicide note has failed to establish that it was authored by the deceased, and the Forensic Science Laboratory has not returned any conclusive opinion regarding handwriting attribution. 13. Learned counsel further argued that in the absence of a clear and reliable forensic opinion connecting the suicide note with the deceased, the entire prosecution case loses its foundation, as there is no independent material demonstrating any act of instigation, aid, or intentional conduct on the part of the Applicants so as to attract the offence of abetment to suicide. 14. It was further urged that mere allegations of harassment, monetary disputes, or interpersonal discord, even if assumed to be true, do not ipso facto constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. 14. It was further urged that mere allegations of harassment, monetary disputes, or interpersonal discord, even if assumed to be true, do not ipso facto constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose any proximate, direct, or active role played by the Applicants that could be said to have driven the deceased to take the extreme step. 15. Learned counsel for the Applicants also assailed the subsequent addition of offences under Sections 385, 420, and 120-B IPC, contending that the said provisions were mechanically incorporated during remand without any foundational material. It was argued that the essential ingredients of extortion, cheating, or criminal conspiracy are conspicuously absent from the record. 16. It was further submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings, despite the investigation having culminated in a final report and despite the absence of legally sustainable material, would amount to unwarranted harassment of the Applicants and a misuse of the criminal justice machinery. 17. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State, submitted that the FIR discloses serious allegations which require thorough judicial scrutiny at the appropriate stage. Learned State counsel contended that the scope of interference, whether under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 CrPC, is limited and that this Court should be slow in stifling a prosecution at its threshold. 18. Learned State counsel argued that the suicide note, coupled with other surrounding circumstances, including the statements recorded during investigation, prima facie indicate the involvement of the Applicants. It was submitted that the inability of the Forensic Science Laboratory to return a conclusive opinion does not render the suicide note non-existent or wholly irrelevant, and that its evidentiary value is a matter to be appreciated during trial. 19. Learned State counsel further submitted that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, that all relevant electronic and documentary evidence, including DVR and CDR records, were collected, and that the final report has now been submitted before the competent court. It was urged that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC. 20. It was urged that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and contended that the deceased was subjected to sustained mental pressure and coercive circumstances, which ultimately resulted in the commission of suicide. It was argued that the allegations disclose a continuing course of conduct, and therefore the offence of abetment cannot be ruled out at this stage. 21. Learned counsel for the private Respondent further submitted that the Applicants have sought to prematurely terminate the criminal proceedings by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, and that the truthfulness or otherwise of the suicide note and other evidence must be tested only during trial. 22. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Applicants reiterated that the criminal law cannot be permitted to operate on conjectures and surmises, particularly in a case resting almost entirely upon a document whose authorship itself remains unestablished. It was urged that allowing the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would defeat the very object of inherent and constitutional safeguards against abuse of process. 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 24. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the well-settled legal position that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, it is equally settled that where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, this Court would be failing in its duty if it permits the criminal process to continue merely for the sake of form. 25. The offence alleged against the Applicants is primarily under Section 306 IPC. In order to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The element of mens rea and a live, proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide are indispensable requirements. 26. In order to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The element of mens rea and a live, proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide are indispensable requirements. 26. In the present case, the foundation of the prosecution case rests almost entirely upon a purported suicide note, which is alleged to have been authored by the deceased and to contain imputations against the Applicants. It is not in dispute that this suicide note was sent for forensic examination with respect to handwriting attribution. 27. The record reflects that the Forensic Science Laboratory was unable to return a conclusive opinion regarding the authorship of the suicide note due to certain anomalies. This Court had, on more than one occasion, called upon the Investigating Officer to clarify the status of the forensic examination, and it was candidly stated before this Court that no definitive forensic linkage between the handwriting on the suicide note and that of the deceased could be established. 28. In a prosecution for abetment to suicide, where the suicide note is projected as the principal incriminating circumstance, the authenticity and authorship of such a document assumes critical significance. While it is true that the absence of a forensic opinion may not, in all cases, be fatal, the weight to be attached to such a document at the threshold stage cannot be ignored, particularly when no other cogent material is shown to independently establish instigation or intentional aid. 29. Apart from the suicide note, the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose any specific act, overt or covert, on the part of the Applicants which could be said to have directly or indirectly driven the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations, at their highest, indicate disputes of a personal or financial nature, but fall short of demonstrating the degree of culpable conduct required to attract Section 306 IPC. 30. It is a settled principle that mere allegations of harassment, discord, or strained relations, without something more, cannot constitute abetment to suicide. The law requires a proximate cause, a clear mens rea, and a demonstrable nexus between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. The material on record, even if taken at face value, does not prima facie satisfy these requirements. It is a settled principle that mere allegations of harassment, discord, or strained relations, without something more, cannot constitute abetment to suicide. The law requires a proximate cause, a clear mens rea, and a demonstrable nexus between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. The material on record, even if taken at face value, does not prima facie satisfy these requirements. 31. The subsequent addition of offences under Sections 385, 420, and 120-B IPC also merits careful scrutiny. The record does not reveal any foundational material showing the essential ingredients of extortion or cheating, such as dishonest inducement, delivery of property pursuant thereto, or wrongful loss and corresponding wrongful gain. Similarly,  the element of criminal conspiracy has been invoked without any tangible material indicating a meeting of minds. 32. This Court is conscious of the submission advanced on behalf of the State that disputed questions of fact ought not to be examined at this stage. However, the present case does not call for a detailed appreciation of evidence, but rather for an examination as to whether the allegations and the material collected disclose the commission of the offences alleged. Where the basic ingredients of the offences are conspicuously absent, permitting the prosecution to proceed would itself amount to an abuse of process. 33. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the State and the private Respondent on the proposition that the evidentiary value of the suicide note and other material is a matter for trial. While that proposition is unexceptionable, it presupposes the existence of prima facie material capable of sustaining the charge. In the absence of a conclusive forensic opinion and in the absence of any other independent incriminating material, the continuation of criminal proceedings would rest on speculation rather than on legally sustainable grounds. 34. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the investigation has culminated in submission of the final report. The prolonged pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the absence of foundational material, reinforces the conclusion that allowing the criminal process to continue would result in undue prejudice to the Applicants without serving the ends of justice. 35. The inherent and constitutional powers of this Court exist precisely to ensure that criminal law is not set in motion or allowed to continue on the basis of conjectures, surmises, or legally insufficient material. The present case squarely falls within that protective ambit. 36. 35. The inherent and constitutional powers of this Court exist precisely to ensure that criminal law is not set in motion or allowed to continue on the basis of conjectures, surmises, or legally insufficient material. The present case squarely falls within that protective ambit. 36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the circumstances placed on record do not disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306, 385, 420, or 120-B IPC, even prima facie. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of First Information Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, WPCRL No. 562 of 2024 and WPCRL No. 570 of 2024 are allowed . The First Information Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, and all proceedings consequent thereto, are hereby quashed. C-482 No. 1120 of 2024 and C-482 No. 1121 of 2024 are also allowed . All criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, including the proceedings pending before the competent court pursuant to the remand orders and the final report submitted in the matter, are hereby quashed. All interim orders, if any, stand vacated. The connected proceedings, if any, shall also stand closed.