Jharkhand HC Quashes FIR Against BDO for Using ‘Tum Tam’: Words Alone Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide

The Jharkhand High Court quashed a criminal FIR against a Block Development Officer, holding that using informal address words could not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, sitting singly at the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, has quashed and set aside an FIR and the entire criminal proceeding arising from Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 against Anvesha Ona, a Block Development Officer. The FIR had been registered under Sections 108, 61, 316, 351, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with the death of a Panchayat Secretary. The court found that the sole allegation — that the petitioner used informal pronoun forms while addressing the deceased — did not satisfy any of the essential ingredients of the offences charged, and that continuing the proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law.

The FIR and the Allegation

Anvesha Ona was posted as Block Development Officer of Dumri at the relevant time. The case arose from the death of one Sukhlal Mahato, who was serving as Panchayat Secretary. The FIR alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with Sukhlal Mahato by addressing him using the words “Tum Tam Mere Tere” — informal or disrespectful pronoun forms in Hindi.

On the basis of this allegation, the FIR was registered at Dumri Police Station under five provisions of BNS, 2023: Section 108 (abetment of suicide), Section 61 (criminal conspiracy), Section 316 (criminal breach of trust), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), and Section 352 (insult intended to provoke breach of peace). The matter was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Giridih, and the investigation was still ongoing with no chargesheet having been filed.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceeding in their entirety.

The Legal Challenge: Ingredient-by-Ingredient Analysis

Senior Advocate Mr. J.S. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that even if every averment in the FIR were accepted as true, none of the five offences charged was made out. The High Court took up each offence in turn.

On the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS, the court referred to its own reading of the provision alongside two Supreme Court judgments. In Amudha v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police and Another, reported in 2024 INSC 244, the Supreme Court had quoted the three-judge bench decision in Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh to the effect that “a casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation.” The Supreme Court had added that a mere reprimand or a word uttered in anger does not earn the status of abetment; what is required is a positive act that creates a situation where the victim is left with no option but to end their life.

The court also relied on Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, reported in 2026 0 Supreme (SC) 406, where the Supreme Court had held that the act of instigation must be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus indicating that the suicide was a direct result of the accused's instigation.

The Jharkhand High Court drew on these rulings alongside Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, for the proposition that instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage the commission of an act, and that a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The court similarly referred to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, for the requirement of a continued course of conduct leaving the deceased with no other option.

How the Court Reasoned on Each Charge

The court observed that the only allegation against the petitioner was use of the words “Tum Tam” and “Tere Mere.” It went on to note a further and significant fact: the State's own counter-affidavit revealed, at paragraph 14, that witnesses examined during investigation had contradicted even this allegation. Motilal Mahto, Secretary of Chino Panchayat and Chegro Panchayat, had stated in his Section 180 BNSS statement that all Panchayat Secretaries including Sukhlal Mahato were present at the meeting but the Block Development Officer had not insulted the deceased in any manner. This account was corroborated by Rajkumar Choudhary, Panchayat Secretary of Poraiya Panchayat and Asurbandh Panchayat.

Even setting aside this contradiction and proceeding as if the allegation were true, the court held that merely using the words “Tum Tam” and “Tere Mere” could not be termed instigation to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 45 of BNS, 2023, which corresponds to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 108 of BNS was therefore not made out.

On Section 61 of BNS, which concerns criminal conspiracy, the court held that the essential requirement is a meeting of minds between two or more persons. Going through the materials on record, the court found no such material. The charge of criminal conspiracy was accordingly not established even on the face of the FIR.

Section 316 of BNS deals with criminal breach of trust. The court identified the two essential ingredients: entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of that entrusted property. There was, the court found, absolutely no allegation in the FIR of any property being entrusted to the petitioner or of her having misappropriated anything. Without that foundation, the charge could not stand.

On Section 351 of BNS, which covers criminal intimidation, the court held that a threat is a sine qua non of the offence. Using informal pronouns — “Tum Tam” and “Tere Mere” — could not by any stretch of imagination constitute threatening conduct. The charge therefore failed.

Section 352 of BNS addresses insult intended to provoke a breach of peace. The court held that the words used by a Block Development Officer to a Panchayat Secretary in the described circumstances could not be characterised as an intentional insult aimed at provoking a breach of public peace. This charge also was not made out.

The Show-Cause Notice and Form K

The petitioner's counsel had also placed on record that prior to the alleged incident, the office of the Block Development Officer had issued a show-cause notice to the deceased Panchayat Secretary. When Sukhlal Mahato did not respond to the notice, Form K was drawn up against him on 11 June 2025. This was argued as context demonstrating that any interaction between the BDO and the Panchayat Secretary was in the ordinary course of official business, and that there was no allegation of any overt act beyond the issuance of the notice and the words complained of.

Outcome

Having found that none of the five offences registered under the FIR was made out even if all allegations were accepted as true, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law.

The court allowed Cr.M.P. No. 1731 of 2025. The entire criminal proceeding as well as the FIR in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner Anvesha Ona. The interim relief that had been granted to the petitioner by an earlier order dated 24 July 2025 was vacated in view of the final disposal of the petition.