A breakup that ends in suicide cannot always be termed abetment to suicide, the Supreme Court has held while quashing criminal proceedings against six accused.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed proceedings under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against six persons accused of abetting the suicide of a young woman who had been in a relationship with one of them, holding that the allegations disclosed no instigation. The Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s refusal to quash the case, which was pending as Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024 [Chittibarika Chandra Shekar and Others v. State of Telangana and Another].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on 5 October 2026. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the appellants.
The case
According to the prosecution, the first appellant and the young woman were in a consensual relationship and lived together at his house for about three months, with his family accepting the arrangement. Her sister later brought her back to their home. The next day, the woman is stated to have phoned her sister to say that the first appellant had refused to marry her and that she was ending her life. The FIR rested on the sister’s statement.
The prosecution alleged that the first appellant’s family members and a friend had pressured him against the relationship, which led to the refusal. Six persons were arraigned. The appeal arose from the High Court’s order dated 20 February 2026 in a criminal revision (CRLRC No. 763 of 2025). These are allegations of the prosecution, which the Supreme Court found insufficient to sustain the case.
What the Court said
The Bench began by recording that the death by suicide was unequivocally proved, and then examined whether the accused had instigated it. It held:
We are unable to find any instigation by the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by suicide.
On the central contention that the refusal to marry led to the suicide, the Court observed that people react differently to situations and held that the consequence of a breakup cannot be treated as abetment as a matter of course:
It cannot always be termed an abetment to suicide.
The Court also examined intention and knowledge, the mental elements that abetment requires:
The refusal to marry was not with an intention to drive the woman to death by suicide, nor can knowledge be attributed to the accused that on such refusal, she would commit suicide.
Even on the informant’s own account, the Court noted, there was a refusal of marriage which was followed by the woman taking her life, but nothing more that could amount to instigation. It added that it was unable to sustain the prosecution on such frivolous allegations.
The directions
The Court quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024, pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Kushaiguda, Telangana. It directed that the accused, if in custody, be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and that bail bonds of those on bail stand cancelled. The appeal was disposed of and pending applications were rejected.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reinforces a settled line of authority that abetment requires instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, and that the end of a relationship, or a refusal to marry, does not by itself supply those ingredients even where a tragic death follows. Courts are asked to look for a positive act meant to push the person towards taking her life, and not to infer it from the sequence of events alone.
The judgment also reminds trial courts and High Courts that families and friends of a person in a failed relationship should not be drawn into a prosecution on the strength of a general allegation of pressure. The offence is now charged under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the same reasoning on intention and knowledge will be relevant to it.
Case Title: Chittibarika Chandra Shekar and Others v. State of Telangana and Another [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7239 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, with Advocate-on-Record Yash S. Vijay and Advocates Shikhar Aggarwal, Joshua Tom Thomas and Saransh Khandelwal, for the appellants; Advocate-on-Record Devina Sehgal and others for the respondents
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm or suicide, free and confidential support is available through Tele-MANAS at 14416 (24×7).