The Gauhati High Court ruled that a failed love affair or refusal to marry cannot automatically make a man guilty of abetment of suicide. While IPC 306 was quashed for lack of instigation, the man still faces long criminal trial under IPC 417, 376 and POCSO—highlighting how men remain trapped in prosecution even when key charges collapse.
Guwahati: In an important criminal law decision, the Gauhati High Court held that a fallout in a love relationship or refuse to marry cannot, by itself, lead to a charge of abetment of suicide against a man. The Court set aside the cognisance taken under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused, observing that there was no material to show instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid that could have compelled the deceased to end her life.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of a young woman alleging that the accused was in a love relationship with his daughter for about two years on a promise of marriage. It was alleged that the accused took her to different places and established a physical relationship with her, and later refused to marry her. Following this refusal, the girl allegedly became mentally disturbed and committed suicide.
As is now common in matrimonial and relationship breakdown cases involving men, the criminal law was immediately set in motion. Initially, the police registered the case under Sections 417 and 306 IPC. During investigation, rape and POCSO provisions were added, and the case was transferred to the Special POCSO Court. The Special Court took cognizance of all offences without clearly separating emotional allegations from legally sustainable criminal charges.
The accused then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the cognizance order and continuation of proceedings, contending that there was no material to establish abetment of suicide and that the addition of serious sexual offence provisions was legally questionable. He also relied upon WhatsApp chats where the deceased allegedly denied any sexual relationship, pointing out contradictions which, according to him, were ignored at the trial court level.
The High Court carefully examined the FIR, charge sheet, witness statements, trial court records and electronic material, and analysed whether the facts disclosed the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. The Court reiterated that for Section 306 to apply, there must be proof of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, supported by clear mental intent and a direct or proximate link with the act of suicide.
After evaluating the entire material on record, the Court found that except for the allegation of refusal to marry, there was no evidence showing any conduct which could legally amount to abetment. The Court categorically observed,
“Other than the fact that the Petitioner refused to marry the deceased, no other vital material could be found which could prima facie bring the case under the purview of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.”
On this basis, the High Court concluded that mere emotional distress, disappointment in a relationship, or refusal to marry cannot automatically attract criminal liability for abetment of suicide unless supported by legally sustainable evidence demonstrating instigation or intentional conduct leading directly to the suicide.
The Court categorically recognised that mere emotional upset, depression, or refusal to marry cannot automatically be treated as abetment. Importantly, the Court found that except for the refusal to marry two days before the suicide, there was no material showing any active act, sustained pressure, threats, or deliberate conduct by the accused which pushed the deceased into taking her life. There was no evidence of continuous harassment, provocation, or mens rea sufficient to satisfy the strict legal test of abetment. In a crucial relief for men, the Court held that:
“Criminal law cannot punish a man merely for exiting a relationship”.
Accordingly, cognizance under Section 306 IPC was held to be legally unsustainable and was quashed.
However, while examining the rape and POCSO allegations, the Court took a different view. The FIR and witness statements consistently alleged that the accused had maintained a physical sexual relationship with the girl for nearly two years. The Court noted that the vernacular expression used in the FIR was “Xaririk Sambandha”, which in common Assamese usage denotes a sexual physical relationship. Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were relied upon to support this allegation.
The Court also observed that WhatsApp records contained references to sexual conduct and that the accused himself referred to the girl being a minor at the relevant time. While there were contradictions between the accused and the deceased regarding sexual relations, the Court clarified that it was not conducting a mini-trial and that such inconsistencies would be tested during full trial.
The Court then examined the age factor. The date of birth certificate showed that the girl was 19 years old at the time of suicide, meaning that during the alleged two-year relationship, she was below 18 years and legally a minor. On this basis, the Court held that prima facie ingredients for invoking Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were made out at the threshold stage. The Court observed that at the stage of cognizance, only foundational material is required and detailed scrutiny of truth or falsity must be left to trial.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the cognizance only to the extent of Section 306 IPC but upheld the cognizance under Sections 417 and 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The criminal petition was partly allowed, and the prosecution will continue for the remaining offences.
Finally, the High Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the charge of abetment of suicide while permitting prosecution under cheating and POCSO provisions to continue. This judgment draws an essential legal boundary: a man cannot be criminally prosecuted for suicide merely because a relationship ends, yet once sexual offence provisions involving minors are invoked, courts will allow trials to proceed even amid contradictions, leaving men to face prolonged legal battles.
As a final conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the petition by quashing only the abetment of suicide charge while maintaining cognizance under Sections 417 and 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The ruling reinforces a crucial principle for men facing false or exaggerated accusations: emotional tragedy and failed relationships cannot substitute the strict legal requirements of abetment, but allegations under POCSO carry a heavy procedural burden that men must contest through trial rather than early discharge.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How the High Court Applied It |
| Section 306 IPC | Punishes abetment of suicide | Quashed because refusal to marry did not amount to instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid |
| Section 107 IPC | Defines abetment (instigation, conspiracy, intentional aid) | Court held none of the three ingredients were present |
| Section 417 IPC | Punishment for cheating | Allowed to continue as allegations of deception were prima facie present |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Upheld at cognizance stage due to prima facie material of sexual relationship |
| Section 6 POCSO Act | Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor | Upheld since allegations covered a period when the girl was below 18 |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court | Used to quash abuse of process regarding Section 306 IPC |
| Section 397/401 CrPC | Revisional jurisdiction | Invoked to examine legality of cognizance order |
| Section 161 CrPC | Police statements of witnesses | Relied upon to assess prima facie case under POCSO |
| Evidence Act Sections 101–102 | Burden of proof | Court noted prosecution must still prove foundational facts during trial |
Case Details
- Case Title: Hussain Md. Rijuan @ Hussain Mahammad Rizuwan vs The State of Assam & Anr., Crl.Pet. No. 800 of 2021
- Court: Gauhati High Court
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita
- Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:17369
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved on: 16.10.2025
- Judgment Pronounced on: 15.12.2025
- Counsels Appearing:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. P. J. Saikia, Senior Advocate, and Ms. M. Nirola, Advocate
- For the State of Assam: Mr. R. J. Baruah, Additional Public Prosecutor
- For Respondent No. 2 / Informant: Mr. S. Nawaz, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Breakup or refusal to marry cannot be criminalised as abetment of suicide without clear instigation or pressure.
- Emotional allegations alone are not enough to jail men; courts must demand hard evidence.
- Misuse of suicide laws against men is being judicially checked.
- POCSO charges can still trap men on mere prima facie claims, showing high legal risk in relationships.
- Men must protect themselves legally — love today can become litigation tomorrow.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.