The Supreme Court has quashed an abetment-of-suicide prosecution against a man whose partner died by suicide after he refused to marry her. It held that the end of a relationship, even when followed by the partner's death, does not on its own amount to instigation.

The ruling came in Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7239 of 2026), decided on 5 October 2026 by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

What the prosecution alleged

The first appellant and the deceased were in a consensual relationship and had lived together at his home for about three months, with his family's acceptance. The woman's sister then took her back to the family home.

The next day the woman called her sister. She said the first appellant had refused to marry her and that she was going to end her life. The FIR was registered on the sister's statement.

Six people were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: the man, his parents, his sister, his sister's proposed groom and a friend. The family members were said to have urged him to end the relationship, and the friend was alleged to have spoken ill of the woman. The offence of abetment of suicide is now in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case was pending as Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024 at Kushaiguda in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The Telangana High Court refused to quash it on 20 February 2026.

No intention, no knowledge, no instigation

The Court accepted that the death was a suicide. The question was whether any of the accused had instigated it.

Even taking the sister's account at face value, the Bench found none. The man's refusal to marry was not made with the intention of driving the woman to her death. Nor could the accused be said to have known that she would take her life because of it. The Court therefore held that a breakup or a refusal to marry, followed by suicide, cannot always be treated as abetment.

Since there was no instigation by anyone, the prosecution could not be sustained against the man or against the relatives and friend charged with him.

Outcome

The Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the sessions case against all six appellants. It directed that any appellant in custody be released unless wanted in another case, and that the bail bonds of those on bail stand cancelled.

Why it matters

Section 306 IPC and Section 108 BNS cases often arise out of failed relationships, and family members are frequently named alongside the partner. The ruling tells trial and High Courts to look for a positive act of instigation, and for the intention or knowledge behind it, before allowing such a prosecution to go to trial. Grief and a sequence of events are not enough.