Attempted Suicide Under Severe Stress Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 309 IPC Without Rebutting Statutory Presumption; Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Under IPC and Arms Act for Absence of Essential Ingredients

Case Name: Jaspreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 22 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-5128-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neerja K. Kalson

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 creates a rebuttable statutory presumption that a person attempting suicide was suffering from severe stress, and prosecution under Section 309 IPC cannot be sustained unless that presumption is displaced by material to the contrary. Reading Section 115 alongside the overriding provision contained in Section 120 of the Act, the Court observed that the legislative framework prioritises care, treatment and rehabilitation over criminal punishment.

The Court further held that the protection under Section 115 does not automatically extinguish liability for independent offences. Such offences must nevertheless satisfy their respective statutory ingredients. Section 109 IPC requires instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, while Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 require disclosure of the specific statutory or licensing contraventions contemplated by those provisions. The mere use of another person’s licensed firearm, without identification of the requisite contravention, is insufficient to sustain prosecution under those sections.

The High Court also clarified that completion of investigation and filing of a challan cannot cure the absence of essential ingredients of a criminal offence. Where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute the offences alleged, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the criminal proceedings.

Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considered whether criminal proceedings arising from an attempted suicide could continue despite the statutory presumption of severe stress under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly when additional offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act had also been invoked.

The proceedings arose from FIR No. 24 dated 09.03.2024, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, under Sections 309 and 109 IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, had allegedly attempted to take his own life on 07.03.2024 by shooting himself with a licensed revolver belonging to co-accused Bhinder Singh. The incident was attributed to stress arising from the petitioner’s personal and family circumstances. Following investigation, the police submitted a challan dated 17.09.2024.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, contending that Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act raised a statutory presumption of severe stress in favour of a person attempting suicide and that the prosecution had produced no material rebutting that presumption. It was further argued that the allegations failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences invoked under Section 109 IPC and the Arms Act. The State opposed the petition, maintaining that sufficient material had been collected during investigation and that the protection under Section 115 could not automatically extend to independent offences under the Arms Act.

Examining the statutory framework, the High Court observed that Section 115(1) expressly presumes severe stress in cases of attempted suicide unless proved otherwise. The Court further considered Section 120 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which accords overriding effect to its provisions in the event of inconsistency with other laws. Referring to Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648, Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, the Court highlighted the legislative transition from criminal punishment towards a rehabilitative and rights-based approach.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecution’s own case established that the petitioner had attempted suicide and that his father’s statement attributed the act to personal and family stress. Since no material had been placed on record to displace the statutory presumption, the prosecution under Section 309 IPC could not continue.

The Court separately examined the allegation under Section 109 IPC and held that the provision necessarily required the ingredients of abetment, namely instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. No allegation or material attributed any such conduct to the petitioner. Consequently, the invocation of Section 109 IPC was held to be legally unsustainable.

Turning to the Arms Act offences, the Court relied upon Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), 2021 INSC 790, to reiterate that Section 27 requires use of a firearm in contravention of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act. The prosecution had neither alleged that the weapon or ammunition was prohibited nor identified any specific contravention of Section 5. The mere fact that the revolver was licensed in another person’s name was held insufficient to establish the requisite statutory violation.

Similarly, relying on Tarlochan Singh @ Rana v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCR 961, the Court observed that Section 30 of the Arms Act requires identification of a particular licence condition, statutory provision or rule allegedly violated. In the absence of any such specified contravention, the offence could not be sustained.

Finally, applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the High Court held that its inherent jurisdiction could be exercised where the allegations, taken at their face value, did not disclose the commission of an offence. The Court emphasised that filing of a challan does not validate proceedings that are legally unsustainable at their inception.

Accordingly, finding the statutory presumption under Section 115 unrebutted and the essential ingredients of the remaining offences absent, the High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was impermissible.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 24 dated 09.03.2024, the challan dated 17.09.2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they related to petitioner Jaspreet Singh. The Court concluded that the prosecution under Section 309 IPC was barred by the unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, while the allegations under Section 109 IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the respective offences.

The Court clarified that completion of investigation and presentation of a challan cannot justify continuation of criminal proceedings where the allegations themselves fail to constitute the offences alleged.