LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/shenbagavalli-and-ors-vs-the-inspector-of-police-kancheepuram-district-and-anr-20250430/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Shenbagavalli and Ors. vs The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
30 April 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 4268 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Abhay S. Oka, Augustine George Masih
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2451 : 2025 INSC 607
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2451 : 2025 INSC 607
Issue for consideration
Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them u/s.306 IPC.
Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Victim-deceased and accused no.7 got married on 15.09.2013 – Relationship deteriorated – It is alleged that on 10.11.2013 accused persons came to the residence of the victim and abused him and his family members with filthy language – Accused no.7 left with other accused persons to her parental house – Victim committed suicide on 09.12.2013 – Chargesheet filed against the appellants u/s.306 of IPC – Appellants sought quashing of same u/s.482 of CrPC before the High Court, which was dismissed – Correctness: Held: What turns out primarily from the sequence of events, statements and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the actual date of suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever either in person or by phone or any other means between the deceased or his relatives and his wife or any of the other accused which would indicate continuous harassment or torture or any sort of pressure at the hands of the accused appellants on the deceased – Therefore, there is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the incident of suicide having taken place – Otherwise also the contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any active or direct act which can be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no option but to push the deceased into a position that he committed suicide – From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of suicide – Merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out – With the very element of abetment conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR which is primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential requirements for constituting an offence u/s.306 IPC remain unfulfilled – As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 14, 17]

Keywords: Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860 · Matrimonial dispute · Harassment · Suicide · Abetment · Aid · Instigate · Abetment to suicide · Abuse of the process of law · Suicide note

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. These two criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 13.04.2018, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, which dismissed the petitions preferred by the Appellants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them under Section 306 IPC. The relevant basic facts of the case are that the deceased Dinesh and Pushpakalashree (Accused No. 7) got married on 15.09.2013. Both are well qualified, as the deceased was an engineer whereas Accused No. 7 is an MBA graduate. 2. Soon after the marriage, relation
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →