Legally present
  • Home
  • Article
  • Latest News Update
  • Law Schools
  • Supreme Court
  • Weekly Digest
Reading: Supreme Court: Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Instigation Under Section 107 IPC | FIR Quashed in Abetment of Suicide Case
Share
Legally present
  • Home
  • Latest News Update
  • Supreme Court
  • Article
  • know your lawyer
  • Weekly Digest
  • Home
  • Article
  • Latest News Update
  • Law Schools
  • Supreme Court
  • Weekly Digest
Follow US
Legally Present > Supreme Court > Supreme Court: Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Instigation Under Section 107 IPC | FIR Quashed in Abetment of Suicide Case
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Instigation Under Section 107 IPC | FIR Quashed in Abetment of Suicide Case

Last updated: 2025/11/02 at 5:26 PM
Published November 2, 2025
Share

The Supreme Court of India has once again clarified the contours of criminal liability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. In a significant judgment, the Court held that mere refusal to marry, even if emotionally painful for the other person, does not constitute “instigation” as required under Section 107 IPC. Therefore, such refusal cannot, by itself, lead to prosecution for abetment of suicide.

Contents
Background of the CaseBench & Key ObservationLegal Position on Abetment under Section 306 & Section 107 IPCSection 306 IPC – Abetment of SuicideSection 107 IPC – Instigation DefinedCourt’s Analysis in the Present CaseKey Quote from the JudgmentFinal VerdictWhy This Judgment Matters1. Prevents Misuse of Section 306 IPC2. Reinforces Need for Clear Criminal Intent3. Protects Personal Autonomy in Marital Decisions4. Counsels Sensitivity During InvestigationConclusionAlso Read

This ruling came in the case titled Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr., Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058, where a man was charged after a woman allegedly took her own life because he refused to marry her.

Background of the Case

An FIR was registered in 2016 at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, after a young government advocate consumed poison and died. The deceased’s mother accused Yadwinder Singh, also known as Sunny, of abetting her suicide by betraying his promise to marry her.

According to the prosecution:

  • The couple was in a relationship.
  • The accused had allegedly assured the woman that he would convince his family for their marriage.
  • Later, he is said to have backed out, which emotionally devastated the woman.

Based on these allegations, he was booked under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).

However, the accused approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court refused, after which he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Bench & Key Observation

The matter was heard by a Division Bench of:

  • Justice J.B. Pardiwala
  • Justice K.V. Viswanathan

The Bench emphasized that abetment requires a clear and deliberate act of instigation or aiding, and such mental intention must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Position on Abetment under Section 306 & Section 107 IPC

Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide

To hold someone liable, prosecution must show:

  • The deceased committed suicide, and
  • The accused instigated, aided, or intentionally participated in driving the deceased to suicide.

Section 107 IPC – Instigation Defined

Instigation involves:

  • Active encouragement
  • Provocation
  • Deliberate act that pushes the person to commit suicide.

The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings in:

  • Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh
  • Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan

Both judgments underline that there must be a direct, proximate, and intentional act that leaves the victim with no choice except suicide.

Court’s Analysis in the Present Case

The Court accepted that the woman may have felt:

  • Hurt
  • Betrayed
  • Emotionally distressed

However, emotional distress alone is not instigation in law.

The Court noted:

“Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation under Section 107 IPC.”

There was:

  • No element of coercion
  • No threats
  • No intentional encouragement to commit suicide

Thus, the primary ingredient of abetment was missing.

The Court added that sensitive personal relationships cannot be criminalized unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent.

Key Quote from the Judgment

“The act of instigation must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide. Without a positive act of incitement or active aid, the offence cannot be sustained.”

The Court also remarked that while the woman’s death is tragic:

“As judges, we are obliged to decide the matter based on the evidence on record.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, and:

  • Quashed FIR No. 273/2016
  • Set aside all criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar

The Court cautioned that forcing an accused to face trial in such cases would be a “travesty of justice.”

Why This Judgment Matters

1. Prevents Misuse of Section 306 IPC

Breakdowns in relationships are common. Criminalizing emotional hurt could open floodgates to fabricated cases.

2. Reinforces Need for Clear Criminal Intent

Abetment requires intent + direct involvement, not merely emotional impact.

3. Protects Personal Autonomy in Marital Decisions

No individual can be legally compelled to marry to avoid criminal liability.

4. Counsels Sensitivity During Investigation

The Court reiterated that police must be sensitized not to file such cases merely to satisfy the family’s grief.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as an important legal clarification in cases involving allegations of abetment of suicide arising from personal relationships. While the emotional pain caused by broken relationships can be severe, criminal law cannot be used to punish private moral choices, unless backed by clear, intentional, and active incitement to suicide.

The decision strengthens the principle that:

  • Criminal liability must always be based on evidence
  • Not sympathy
  • Not assumption
  • Not emotional appeal

Also Read

Supreme Court Upholds Higher Gratuity Limit for Assam Finance Corporation Employees: No Discrimination Once State Fixes Higher Ceiling

Supreme Court Criticizes Gujarat High Court For Refusing To Quash Police Summons Issued To Advocate: Key Observations and Legal Significance

You Might Also Like

Supreme Court: Biometric Attendance System Not Illegal Even Without Prior Consultation With Employees

No Compassionate Appointment When Missing Employee Retires Before 7-Year Presumption of Death Period: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hails India’s Progress in Road Transport Infrastructure: “Highways Smoother Than Ever Before”

SP vs DSP in ‘Rape on False Promise to Marry’ Case: Why Supreme Court Suggested They Should Have Checked Horoscopes First

Supreme Court Upholds Higher Gratuity Limit for Assam Finance Corporation Employees: No Discrimination Once State Fixes Higher Ceiling

TAGGED: FIR, Section 107 IPC, Supreme Court
Share This Article
Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Whatsapp LinkedIn Telegram
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

[mc4wp_form]
Popular News
Latest News Update

Consumer Court Pulls Up Amazon for Delivering Wrong Product and Refusing Refund

Vanita Vanita October 13, 2025
Supreme Court Overturns Haryana Sarpanch Election Result After Recount of EVM Votes by Its Registrar
PIL in Supreme Court Seeks Court-Monitored Probe into Deaths of Children from Toxic Cough Syrup
Supreme Court Clarifies: Touching Private Parts of Minor Is Not Rape, But Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act
Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan HC Ruling on POCSO Safeguards After Victim Turns 18: Key Highlights and Legal Implications
lawferAd image
lexibalAd image

Categories

  • Supreme Court
  • Latest News Update
  • High Court
  • Article
  • know your lawyer

About US

Legally Present is an Indian legal news platform covering court judgments, legal rights, and insights for law professionals and students.
Quick Link
  • My Bookmark
  • InterestsNew
Top Categories
  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Subscribe US

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

[mc4wp_form]

© Legally Present All Rights Reserved.