Refusal to Marry Does Not Establish Abetment of Suicide Without Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Proceedings Against Six Accused

Case Name: Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Others v. The State of Telangana & Another.

Date of Judgment: 5 October 2026.

Citation: SLP (Criminal) No. 7239 of 2026.

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Held: The Supreme Court held that, on the allegations before it, refusal to marry a partner in a consensual relationship did not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Even accepting the informant’s account in full, the Court found no instigation by the accused, no intention to drive the deceased to suicide, and no basis to attribute knowledge that refusal would cause her to take her life. It emphasised that a suicide following a relationship breakdown cannot invariably be treated as abetment.

Summary: The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against six accused arising from the death by suicide of a woman who had been in a consensual relationship with the first appellant, Chittibarika Chandra Shekar. The prosecution alleged that his refusal to marry her, influenced by objections from relatives and a friend, led to her death.

According to the first information statement lodged by the deceased’s sister, the couple had lived together for approximately three months at the first appellant’s house, and his family had accepted their relationship. After learning of the arrangement, the deceased’s elder sister brought her back to the family home. The following day, the first appellant telephoned the informant to ask where he should drop the deceased. Later, the deceased allegedly called her eldest sister, said that the first appellant had refused to marry her, and threatened to end her life. The suicide occurred at the first appellant’s house.

Apart from the first appellant, the accused included his parents, sister, the sister’s prospective bridegroom and a friend. The prosecution alleged that the friend spoke adversely about the deceased, prompting the first appellant to withdraw from the marriage proposal. His sister allegedly opposed the relationship because her prospective bridegroom had threatened not to marry her if the first appellant married the deceased. The parents were alleged to have agreed with that opposition.

Examining these allegations, the Supreme Court found no conduct amounting to instigation to commit suicide. It held that, even if the informant’s version were fully accepted, the allegation ultimately concerned refusal of marriage followed by suicide. That sequence did not, in the circumstances, establish the necessary criminal involvement of the accused.

The Court observed that individuals react differently to distressing situations and that a breakup ending in suicide cannot always be characterised as abetment. It specifically found that the refusal to marry was neither intended to drive the deceased to suicide nor accompanied by knowledge attributable to the accused that she would respond by taking her life.

Describing the allegations supporting this prosecution as “frivolous”, the Court declined to permit the proceedings to continue. Its conclusion concerned the particular allegations against these six accused; the order does not confer blanket immunity in every case involving suicide after a broken relationship or refusal to marry.

Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case  of 2024 pending before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda, Telangana.