8 October 2026 Legal Updates

If Breakup Ends Up With Suicide, It Cannot Always Be Termed Abetment To Suicide : Supreme Court

Case details

• Case: Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 7239 of 2026)
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts of the case

• Six accused (the appellants) were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC (abetment of suicide) after a woman (“the deceased”) died by suicide.
• The 1st appellant had been in a relationship with the deceased; they were not married but lived together for about three months at his house. The informant (the deceased's sister) admitted the relationship was consensual and that it was accepted by the 1st appellant's family.
• The prosecution case, based on the informant's First Information Statement, was that the deceased's sisters took her away from the 1st appellant's house, after which the 1st appellant allegedly refused to marry her, and the deceased told her eldest sister by phone that she was ending her life because of this refusal.
• The other appellants were the 1st appellant's father (2nd), sister (3rd), the sister's proposed bridegroom (5th), mother (6th), and a friend (4th). They were alleged to have discouraged the marriage — the friend allegedly spoke ill of the deceased, and the sister/family were concerned that the sister's own proposed marriage would fall through if the 1st appellant married the deceased.
• The Telangana High Court declined to quash the proceedings (order dated 20.02.2026), and the matter pending as Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024 continued. The appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

• The Court noted that the death by suicide was proved, and that the consensual relationship was admitted by the informant herself. It found it difficult to understand why the informant and her sister had taken the deceased away from the 1st appellant's house when the relationship was accepted by his family.
• The Court also noted that when the deceased called her eldest sister and threatened to end her life, the sister did nothing to avert it.
• Even taking the informant's version at its highest, the Court held there was no instigation by any of the appellants to drive the deceased to suicide. The most that could be said was that there was a refusal to marry, which led to the woman's suicide - this was neither intended nor amounted to abetment.
• The Court observed that people react differently to situations, and if a breakup ends in suicide, it cannot always be termed abetment of suicide. The refusal to marry was not made with the intention of driving the woman to suicide, nor could the accused be attributed knowledge that she would commit suicide on such refusal.
• The Court described the allegations as frivolous and held the prosecution could not be sustained.

Held

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024, pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, Telangana. The accused were directed to be released forthwith if in custody (unless required in another case), and if on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled. The appeal was disposed of, and pending applications were rejected.

Key legal principles established

• A mere refusal to marry, even where it is followed by the other person's suicide, does not by itself amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; the prosecution must show instigation, or an intention (or at least knowledge) on the accused's part that the act would drive the person to suicide.
• A relationship breakup that is followed by suicide cannot always be termed abetment — people react differently to such situations, and the accused's conduct must be examined for the necessary mens rea rather than the mere fact of a tragic outcome.
• Family members or friends who merely express disapproval of a relationship or marriage, or speak ill of a person, without more, do not thereby instigate suicide so as to attract Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
• Courts can quash proceedings under Section 306 IPC where, even accepting the prosecution's case at its highest, the essential ingredient of instigation or abetment is not made out, treating such prosecutions as frivolous.