The Supreme Court ruled that a man’s refusal to marry cannot be treated as abetment to suicide, quashing the FIR against a Punjab lawyer accused under Section 306 IPC and reinforcing the need for clear evidence of instigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR against Punjab-based advocate Yadwinder Singh alias Sunny, accused of abetting the suicide of a woman lawyer. The court held that Singh’s refusal to marry the deceased did not constitute “abetment” under criminal law.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s March 17, 2025, order, which had previously declined to quash the case. The apex court remarked that continuing the prosecution would be an “empty formality” and a “travesty of justice.”
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered on November 7, 2016, at Chheharta Police Station in Amritsar. The complaint was filed by the mother of the deceased woman advocate, who alleged that her daughter had consumed poison on November 6, 2016, after Singh declined to marry her.
According to the mother’s initial complaint, Singh had earlier proposed marriage but later backed out, leaving the young woman distraught. Two days later, in a supplementary statement, she alleged that Singh had physically and mentally exploited her daughter under the pretext of marriage and remained indifferent when the deceased threatened suicide.
Following the complaint, police registered a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), abetment of suicide, and proceeded with prosecution, relying on the supplementary statement and CDs of recorded phone conversations between the deceased and the accused.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, however, found no sufficient grounds to establish abetment. It was observed that the supplementary statement appeared to be an “improvement” over the original FIR and lacked independent corroboration.
“Even if we accept the entire case of the prosecution as it is, none of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of abetment under Section 306 IPC are made out,”
the bench said.
The Court emphasized that abetment under Section 107 IPC requires active instigation, encouragement, or aiding of suicide, not mere emotional conflict or refusal to marry.
Referring to its previous rulings in Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, the bench reiterated that refusal to marry, even if true, cannot amount to instigation under criminal law.
The judgment reinforces a crucial legal distinction: emotional distress alone does not equal criminal abetment. The court acknowledged that the deceased might have been deeply hurt but clarified that courts must rely on law, not sympathy.
“It is possible that she felt deeply hurt. One sensitive moment took away her life. However, as judges, we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts,”
the order stated.
The bench concluded that Singh could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act, and thus, forcing him to face trial would be unjustified.
The Supreme Court consequently quashed the FIR registered at Chheharta Police Station and set aside all related proceedings pending before the Sessions Court in Amritsar.
Case Title:
Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny Vs State of Punjab & Anr
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7309 of 2025
READ ORDER
