The Supreme Court has vacated a Rajasthan High Court stay on criminal proceedings, holding that a separate extortion charge required independent examination even if the suicide-abetment charge was considered doubtful. The Court set aside the stay without deciding the accused persons’ guilt.
New Delhi: Doubt about whether allegations constitute abetment of suicide did not justify stopping proceedings altogether when a separate extortion charge had also been framed, the Supreme Court held in Vijender Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Another.
The November 6, 2026 order by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, uploaded on November 7, allows the appeal against an interim stay passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.
Revision petitions stalled proceedings
The prosecution case concerned alleged harassment leading to a death by suicide in August 2021. After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 306, 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning abetment of suicide, extortion and criminal conspiracy.
The Sessions Court rejected a discharge application and framed charges on July 23, 2024. Two accused challenged that order in revision. On December 2, 2024, the High Court stayed further proceedings against them until disposal of their revision petitions.
Extortion charge needed separate scrutiny
The High Court’s interim reasoning was that, even taking the alleged acts at face value or in their entirety, it would be difficult to constitute an offence under Section 306. The Supreme Court found that this reasoning had not addressed the distinct charge under Section 384.
In paragraph 7, the Bench held that the extortion charge warranted independent examination even if the suicide-abetment charge was in doubt. There was consequently no basis for staying further proceedings altogether and bringing the case to a halt.
The distinction matters because the possible weakness of one charge does not, by itself, answer whether another charge can proceed. The Court’s order concerns the justification for the interim stay; it does not determine the ultimate merits of either charge.
Stay vacated
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the stay and set aside the High Court’s December 2, 2024 order in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1145 and 1269 of 2024. Pending applications before the Supreme Court were disposed of.
The order removes the restraint imposed through that interim order. It does not dismiss the revision petitions themselves or hold that the prosecution has proved the allegations.
Case: Vijender Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Another
Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5306/2026, arising from SLP(Crl) No. 10518/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva
Order: November 6, 2026
Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court’s interim stay vacated.
![[Demolitions in Somnath] "If Authorities in Contempt, Will Ask Them to Restore Structures": SC Declines To Halt Demolitions, Seeks Gujarat's Response](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-15.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
