According to the facts of the case, the deceased, Ashok Kumar, allegedly due to threats, assault, and a financial dispute between him and the first appellant, Sandeep Bansal, the son of a money lender committed suicide. In this case, the widow of the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000 from Sandeep Bansal and later another sum of Rs.60,000. The deceased was allegedly under tension due to a legal notice regarding dishonoured cheques issued by Sandeep. On 4 th July, 2017, the deceased, distressed by the events committed suicide. The prosecution relied on a suicide note written by the deceased on June 30, 2017. The High Court, rejected the plea to quash the offence, allowing the case to proceed.

Whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide?

The Court observed that “In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose.

The Supreme Court concluded that the acts of the accused did not amount to instigation under Section 306. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order and observed that the continuation of the prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.