Court Observes That Section 108 BNS Requires Active Role, Mens Rea and Proximate Act of Incitement; FIR Against Two Accused Quashed After Compromise
Chandigarh: In an important judgment concerning the scope of proceedings relating to alleged abetment of suicide, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two accused persons, holding that a dispute regarding payment of money arising out of a construction contract, without any positive act of instigation or intentional aid, cannot constitute an offence of abetment of suicide.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding CRM-M-14315-2026 (O&M) titled Gurcharan Singh alias Karnail Singh and Another versus State of Punjab and Others, allowed the petition filed by the accused persons and quashed FIR No. 320 dated 06.12.2025 registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The Court held that although the allegation involved the unfortunate death of a person by suicide, the essential ingredients required to constitute abetment of suicide were not disclosed from the allegations contained in the FIR. The Court observed that there must be an active role by the accused through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, and mere allegations of harassment or a financial dispute would not be sufficient to attract criminal liability.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated from the death of Jagsir Singh, who was working as a mason and had undertaken construction work for the petitioners, namely Gurcharan Singh alias Karnail Singh and Baljinder Singh alias Bheeri. As per the allegations recorded in the FIR, Jagsir Singh had constructed a house for the accused persons and an amount of approximately ₹60,000/- was allegedly payable to him towards the remaining construction dues. The complainant alleged that when Jagsir Singh demanded payment of the outstanding amount, the accused persons refused to make the payment, stating that there were defects in the flooring work. According to the allegations, the deceased remained under mental stress due to the dispute and subsequently committed suicide. The FIR was registered alleging commission of an offence under Section 108 BNS, which corresponds to the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Compromise Between Parties Before Trial Court
During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused persons approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Earlier, the High Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements regarding the compromise. In compliance with the directions, the parties appeared before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo on 24.08.2026. The Magistrate submitted a report confirming that:
- The compromise was genuine and voluntary;
- The parties had entered into settlement without pressure or coercion;
- The complainant and injured/aggrieved persons had appeared and recorded their statements;
- The identity of the parties was verified.
State Opposes Quashing Due To Nature of Offence
During hearing before the High Court, the State did not dispute the factum of compromise. However, the State opposed quashing of the FIR on the ground that an offence under Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC is a serious and non-compoundable offence. The State relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Daxaben versus State of Gujarat & Others, arguing that offences relating to abetment of suicide cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the complainant and accused have entered into a compromise.
Accused Argue No Offence Made Out From FIR
Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. It was submitted that even if the allegations contained in the FIR were taken at face value, the basic ingredients of Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC were not satisfied. The petitioners argued that the case was essentially a dispute relating to payment of construction dues and there was no allegation showing that the accused persons had instigated, provoked or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.
High Court Examines Ingredients of Abetment of Suicide
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed commission of an offence under Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC. The Court examined the legal requirement for establishing abetment of suicide. Referring to Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment, the Court noted that abetment may occur through:
- Instigation;
- Conspiracy; or
- Intentional aid.
The Court observed that instigation means encouraging, provoking, urging or inciting a person to commit an act.
Mere Harassment Not Enough To Constitute Abetment
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ude Singh & Others versus State of Haryana, wherein it was held that in cases involving alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement. The Supreme Court has held that mere allegations of harassment would not be sufficient unless there is some positive action on the part of the accused which compelled the deceased to commit suicide and such action must be proximate to the occurrence. Applying this principle, the High Court observed that criminal liability under Section 108 BNS cannot be imposed merely because a person was involved in a dispute with the deceased.
There must be evidence of intention and active participation.
Court Finds Dispute Was Primarily Financial In Nature
After examining the allegations in the FIR, the High Court observed that the dispute between the parties related to payment of construction dues. The Court noted that the allegations were essentially that the deceased was demanding his pending payment and the accused persons disputed the claim on the ground that the construction work was defective. The Court held that such a dispute regarding payment of money cannot, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide. The Court observed that what is relevant for Section 108 BNS is not merely what the deceased felt, but what was the intention and conduct of the accused persons.
Requirement of Mens Rea Missing: Court
The High Court further observed that the element of mens rea, meaning criminal intention, was absent in the present case. The Court held that the accused persons could not be held responsible for abetment of suicide merely because the deceased was distressed due to a financial dispute. The Court observed that the allegations did not indicate that the accused persons created circumstances where the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. There was no material showing any intentional act of instigation or provocation by the accused persons.
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments
The High Court relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court while examining the scope of Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC.
Gian Singh vs State of Punjab
The Court referred to the principle that the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice.
However, such power must be exercised considering the nature and seriousness of the offence.
Daxaben vs State of Gujarat
The Court considered the State’s reliance on Daxaben but observed that the judgment does not prevent the High Court from examining whether the basic ingredients of the offence are made out from the FIR itself. The Court distinguished the present case by holding that the allegations did not disclose commission of the offence under Section 108 BNS.
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Case
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sanju case, where it was held that words spoken during a quarrel, without necessary intention, may not amount to instigation. The High Court observed that criminal liability requires more than a dispute or emotional reaction.
FIR Quashed by High Court
After considering the facts and legal position, the High Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
The Court observed that:
- The dispute was primarily regarding payment of money;
- No ingredient of Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC was established;
- The possibility of conviction was remote;
- Continuation of trial would cause unnecessary hardship.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 320 dated 06.12.2025 registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it.
Counsel Appearing Before High Court
The petitioners were represented by:
Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
The State of Punjab was represented by:
Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Respondents No. 2 to 7 were represented by:
Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The judgment reiterates an important principle in criminal law that every unfortunate death by suicide cannot automatically result in criminal prosecution for abetment. For attracting Section 108 BNS/Section 306 IPC, prosecution must establish a clear link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. A financial dispute, disagreement over payment, or ordinary conflict between parties cannot by itself constitute abetment unless accompanied by intentional acts of instigation or active assistance. The ruling provides guidance regarding the careful examination required in cases where criminal proceedings are initiated after a person’s suicide arising out of personal, financial or contractual disputes.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Gurcharan Singh alias Karnail Singh and Another versus State of Punjab and Others highlights the distinction between a dispute causing emotional distress and an offence of abetment of suicide. While recognising the seriousness of allegations involving suicide, the Court held that criminal liability cannot be imposed without establishing the essential ingredients of Section 108 BNS, including instigation, intentional aid and mens rea. By quashing the FIR, the Court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings must be based on legally sustainable allegations and cannot continue merely on the basis of a financial dispute where the necessary elements of abetment are absent.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Court Updates