Refusing to marry live-in partner does not by itself amount to abetment of suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that refusing to marry a live-in partner, followed by the partner’s suicide, does not by itself amount to the offence of abetment of suicide without intentional instigation or knowledge that such refusal would have led to suicide.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against six accused, including the woman's partner, his parents, sister and others.

The Court observed that the allegations, even if accepted as stated by the complainant, did not establish any act of instigation by the accused to drive the woman to suicide.

“People react differently to situations and if a breakup ends up with suicide, it cannot always be termed an abetment to suicide. The refusal to marry was not with an intention to drive the woman to death by suicide nor can knowledge be attributed to the accused that on such refusal, she would commit suicide,” said the Court.

The case arose from a 2022 First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC (abetment of suicide with common intention). The prosecution alleged that the deceased woman and the first accused, who were childhood friends, were in a consensual relationship and had lived together at his residence for around three months.

The prosecution further submitted that the woman's partner had proposed marriage, which was initially accepted by the deceased and his family.

However, his friend subsequently allegedly spoke ill of the deceased, while his sister’s prospective husband opposed the marriage. It was further alleged that the accused’s parents, sister and others pressured him to end the relationship.

The Court noted that the deceased had told her eldest sister over the phone that the first accused had refused to marry her and that she would end her life if the marriage did not take place the next day.

According to the prosecution case, an altercation subsequently took place at the accused's residence, following which the deceased allegedly locked herself in a room and died by suicide.

The accused sought discharge from the case, but the trial court rejected the plea in December 2024.

The Telangana High Court also dismissed their revision petition in February 2026, holding that the disputed factual issues required a full-fledged trial.

The Supreme Court, however, found no material showing that the accused had intended to drive the woman to suicide.

“We are unable to find any instigation by the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be abetment,” held the Court.

The Court consequently quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat along with advocates Yash S Vijay, Shikhar Aggarwal, Joshua Tom Thomas and Saransh Khandelwal appeared for the complainant.

Advocates Devina Sehgal, Yatharth Kansal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Syed Ahmed Saud, Mohd Parvez Dabas, Mir Mukarram Ali, Daanish Ahmed Syed, Uzmi Jameel Husain and Mohd Shahib appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]