J&K High Court Upholds Abetment of Suicide Charge Against Petitioner No. 1, Quashes Proceedings Against Co-Accused for Lack of Specific Role
The Srinagar bench found cumulative allegations of humiliation, rejection and indifference sufficient to frame a Section 306 IPC charge, while quashing proceedings against the grandfather for want of specific incriminating material.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has declined to quash the charge framed under Section 306 IPC against Khalid Fayaz Ahanger, the first petitioner in Khalid Fayaz Ahanger and Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K, CRM(M) No. 340/2023. Justice Sanjay Parihar, sitting singly, held on 29 May 2026 that the prosecution material — disclosing a sequence of prolonged intimacy, sudden rejection, public humiliation, character assassination and subsequent indifference — raised sufficient grounds to presume commission of the offence and warranted a full trial. At the same time, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against petitioner No. 2, Habibullah Najar, the maternal grandfather of petitioner No. 1, finding no specific incriminating material against him beyond a general allegation that the deceased was turned out of the house.
The Prosecution Case and the Charge-Framing Order Under Challenge
On 11 April 2023, Police Station Khansahib received an inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding the suspicious death of Saima Javid. The inquiry revealed that the deceased had allegedly been in a relationship with Khalid Fayaz Ahanger for more than five years. On 26 March 2023, a day before her death, she visited the maternal residence of petitioner No. 1 to seek clarification about their relationship after learning he had developed an interest in another girl.
According to the prosecution, she was subjected to humiliation and insult at the house, branded as a woman of questionable character, and forcibly turned out of the premises. She returned home in a distressed condition and, on 27 March 2023, ended her life by hanging herself from a wooden beam on the upper floor of her residence. The investigation found her hanging from the ceiling of her room with a ligature mark around her neck and no apparent signs of struggle.
The prosecution also relied on statements of witnesses — identified as PWs Dila Manzoor, Khushboo Javid and Shaziya Javid — to whom the deceased had allegedly confided her anguish. Critically, the prosecution case included an allegation that when these witnesses informed petitioner No. 1 of the deceased's deteriorating mental state and requested him to speak to her, he allegedly responded that if she wanted to die, she was free to do so. The matter was converted from Section 174 Cr.P.C. proceedings into FIR No. 35/2023 for offences under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
Upon presentation of the charge-sheet, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Budgam took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 306 and 107 IPC against the petitioners. One of the accused expired during the pendency of proceedings, leaving petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 to face prosecution. The petitioners challenged the charge-framing order before the High Court in CRM(M) No. 340/2023.
Petitioners’ Arguments: Absence of Mens Rea and Proximate Nexus
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sheikh Hilal, argued that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC were absent. He submitted that neither petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide, nor was there any proximate nexus between their alleged acts and the death of the deceased. He contended that the charge-sheet was silent on any specific role attributable to petitioner No. 2 in the relationship between petitioner No. 1 and the deceased.
Reliance was placed on State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu (Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of 2009, decided on 18 October 2019) to argue that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were conspicuously absent. Counsel also cited Nazir Ahmad Dar and Others v. UT of J&K (CRM(M) No. 430/2023, decided on 31 May 2024) for the proposition that abetment necessarily requires mens rea and material demonstrating a culpable intention to facilitate or instigate suicide. Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021, decided on 5 October 2021) was cited to argue that in the absence of specific allegations and substantive incriminating material, criminal prosecution cannot be sustained.
The petitioners' core submission was that the prosecution had failed to establish that they intended to place the deceased in circumstances that would leave her with no alternative but to end her life, and that the suicide could not be said to be a direct consequence of any act attributable to them.
Respondent’s Case: Cumulative Conduct Establishing Prima Facie Abetment
Mr. Bikdramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the Union Territory of J&K, opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations disclosed a grave offence of abetment of suicide. He pointed to the long-standing relationship of more than five years, which the petitioners themselves did not dispute, and to medical records indicating that the relationship had progressed to physical intimacy.
The respondent emphasised that the deceased was approximately 18 years of age at the relevant time, while petitioner No. 1 was around 22 years old. When the deceased visited his residence on 26 March 2023, she was allegedly subjected to humiliation, branded as a woman of easy virtue, and forcibly turned out. The subsequent refusal of petitioner No. 1 to communicate with her after the incident aggravated her emotional distress and rendered her life unbearable. The respondent argued that the cumulative effect of humiliation, rejection and social ignominy drove the deceased to take the extreme step, establishing a prima facie case of abetment.
The Court’s Reasoning: Cumulative Conduct Distinguished from Ordinary Discord
Justice Parihar began by restating the settled legal position at the charge-framing stage: the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the probable defence of the accused. The only question is whether the material collected during investigation discloses grave suspicion against the accused and whether there exist sufficient grounds for presuming commission of the offence. If the material gives rise to strong suspicion, the matter must proceed to trial.
Applying this standard, the Court found that the prosecution material prima facie revealed a relationship of more than five years, followed by the deceased learning of petitioner No. 1's interest in another girl, her visit to his residence on 26 March 2023, the alleged humiliation and forcible removal, her return in a distressed condition, and her death by hanging the following day.
The Court acknowledged the judgments cited by the petitioners but held that they did not assist the petitioners at this stage. Those decisions lay down that mere harassment or ordinary discord would not ipso facto constitute abetment of suicide. However, the Court held that each case must be examined on its own facts. In the present case, the prosecution alleged not only rejection but also humiliation and derogatory treatment immediately preceding the occurrence, combined with petitioner No. 1's alleged response of complete indifference when informed of the deceased's fragile mental state.
The Court observed that the conduct attributed to petitioner No. 1 prima facie reflected “an attitude of having used and discarded the deceased as though she were a mere commodity.” The prosecution case was not founded merely on a failed relationship or a refusal to continue a romantic association. Rather, it disclosed a sequence comprising prolonged intimacy, sudden rejection, public humiliation, character assassination and subsequent indifference. These circumstances, viewed cumulatively, distinguished the present case from those where allegations were found wholly insufficient to attract the ingredients of abetment of suicide.
On the question of mens rea and proximity, the Court held that whether the conduct attributed to the petitioners amounted to instigation, intentional aid, or such wilful conduct as would bring the case within the ambit of abetment was essentially a matter requiring appreciation of evidence. The existence of mens rea, the proximity between the acts complained of and the commission of suicide, and the impact of the accused's conduct on the deceased's mental state were all issues that could be conclusively determined only after the parties led evidence before the Trial Court.
The Court also upheld the satisfaction recorded by the Trial Court, finding it neither perverse nor unsupported by the record. At the charge-framing stage, the Court is not required to record a finding of guilt but only to determine whether the material raises a strong suspicion warranting a full-fledged trial.
Petitioner No. 2: Proceedings Quashed for Want of Specific Material
The Court drew a clear distinction between the two surviving petitioners. As regards petitioner No. 2, Habibullah Najar, the maternal grandfather of petitioner No. 1, the Court found that the investigation material disclosed no specific role beyond the general allegation that the deceased was turned out of the house and subjected to humiliation. There was no material demonstrating any intentional act on his part aimed at provoking, inciting, or facilitating the commission of suicide.
The Court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 2 appeared to be founded more on conjecture than on legally admissible material disclosing the ingredients of the offence. Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings against petitioner No. 2 were quashed.
Order
Justice Sanjay Parihar partly allowed CRM(M) No. 340/2023 on 29 May 2026. The petition was dismissed to the extent of petitioner No. 1, Khalid Fayaz Ahanger, with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial against him in accordance with law. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed to the extent of petitioner No. 2, Habibullah Najar. As regards petitioner No. 3, who expired during the pendency of proceedings, the proceedings were held to have abated. The order was marked as speaking and reportable.