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.