The Supreme Court recently intervened in a case involving the alleged abetment of suicide by a government official in Uttar Pradesh. The apex court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the official, who was accused of tormenting and instigating a senior clerk in the District Child Welfare Board to take his own life.

The case stems from an FIR filed at Fatehgarh’s Kotwali police station, invoking Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accusations were based on a suicide note left behind by the deceased, who tragically ended his life by consuming poison in his residence on October 3, 2002.

The appellant official, in his defense before the apex court, argued that the allegations against him did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute the offenses alleged. He contended that the deceased was driven to suicide due to the pressure of managing responsibilities across two districts, rather than any direct action or instigation by him.

After a meticulous examination of the suicide note, the bench, headed by Justice B.R. Gavai and also comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta, concurred with the appellant's argument. 

The court found no indication within the contents of the suicide note that could implicate the accused-appellant in any act or omission amounting to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.

The bench acknowledged the deceased's frustration with work-related pressures and his apprehensions regarding various unrelated factors. However, it asserted that such expressions in the suicide note were insufficient to attribute abetment to the appellant.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the charge sheet failed to establish the necessary elements of abetment to commit suicide. Prosecuting the appellant under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was deemed a gross abuse of legal process.

The apex court also denounced the prosecution's attempt to implicate the appellant under the SC/ST Act, noting that there was no evidence suggesting the offense was motivated by caste discrimination. 

It highlighted the investigative agency's initial proposal to close the case after thorough examination, questioning the rationale behind reopening the investigation and filing a charge sheet.

Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no justifiable grounds to continue the prosecution against the appellant for the alleged offenses. This decision overturns the previous ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had denied the appellant's plea to quash the proceedings before the Farrukhabad’s Chief Judicial Magistrate.