The petitioner, who was serving as the Block Development Officer of Dumri at the material time, was named in an FIR registered at Dumri Police Station under Case No. 70 of 2025. The First Information Report alleged that she had behaved improperly with the deceased Panchayat Secretary, Sukhlal Mahato, by addressing him with the expressions ‘tum‑tam’ and ‘mere‑tere’. The FIR invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, namely Sections 108, 61, 316, 351 and 352, which correspond to offences of abetment of suicide, voluntarily causing hurt, causing grievous hurt by act endangering life, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty, and voluntarily causing hurt on provocation, respectively.

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings. She contended that even if the allegations were accepted as true, none of the offences alleged were made out. In particular, she argued that a casual remark, however unpleasant, could not be construed as instigation to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court’s Examination of the Law on Instigation

The Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary examined the scope of instigation under Section 108 BNS. The Court observed that instigation requires a person to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage another to commit an act. It further noted that, according to Supreme Court pronouncements in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, instigation must be suggestive of the consequence and there must be a continued course of conduct that creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no option except to commit suicide.

The Bench then turned to the factual matrix presented in the FIR. The sole allegation against the petitioner was that she had used the words ‘tum‑tam’ and ‘mere‑tere’ while speaking to the deceased Panchayat Secretary. The Court recorded that even this allegation was found to be untrue from the statements of witnesses examined during the investigation, as reflected in paragraph 14 of the State’s counter affidavit. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to examine the legal consequence on the assumption that the allegation was true.

Application of Legal Principles to the Alleged Conduct

Assuming the truth of the allegation, the Court held that merely addressing a government servant with the colloquial terms ‘tum‑tam’ or ‘mere‑tere’ could not be regarded as goading, urging, provoking, inciting or encouraging the individual to take his own life. The Bench emphasized that such expressions, even if perceived as disrespectful, lack the requisite element of suggesting the consequence of suicide. There was no allegation of any continued conduct, threat, or circumstance that would have left the deceased with no alternative but to end his life.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS were not satisfied. It further observed that, since none of the offences alleged in the FIR were made out even if the prosecution case was accepted at face value, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Operative Outcome

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR registered under Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 and set aside the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The case is titled Anvesha Ona v. State of Jharkhand, bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1731 of 2025. Appearances were noted for the petitioner by Senior Advocate Mr. J.S. Singh, assisted by Mr. Utpal Kant, while the State was represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar.

Implications of the Ruling

The decision clarifies the threshold for instigation under the new penal legislation. It reinforces that isolated remarks, however objectionable, do not constitute abetment of suicide unless they are part of a sustained conduct that actively encourages or leaves the victim with no choice but to commit suicide. The ruling also underscores the court’s willingness to intervene at an early stage to prevent misuse of criminal process where the alleged facts fail to disclose any offence.