Akmal Alias Mohd. Aslam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Akmal Alias Mohd. Aslam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection: petitioners not to be arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR till the next date of listing, subject to their cooperating with the investigation; notice issued to respondent no.3 returnable at an early date; four weeks granted to respondents to file counter affidavit and one week thereafter for rejoinder affidavit; matter requires consideration and is to be listed thereafter.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 09.04.2025 (Case Crime No.10 of 2025, Section 108 BNS, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat) is liable to be quashed and whether the petitioners should be protected from arrest pursuant to it. +1 more

Court's answer

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR, provided they cooperate with the investigation in question.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) interim order dated 17.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9938 of 2025 (Akmal alias Mohd. Aslam and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The writ petition sought quashing of the FIR dated 09.04.2025, Case Crime No.10 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS (discussed by counsel alongside Section 306 IPC), P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat, and a direction that the petitioners not be arrested pursuant to it. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the essential ingredients of the offence are suicidal death and abetment, requiring clear mens rea and an active act intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, relying on M. Mohan v. State (AIR 2011 SC 1238; (2011) 3 SCC 626), M. Arjunan v. State ((2019) 3 SCC 315), Rohit v. State of Maharashtra, Rahul v. State of U.P. and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that the matter requires consideration, issued notice to respondent no.3, granted the respondents four weeks to file a counter affidavit (one week thereafter for rejoinder), and directed that till the next date of listing the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9938 of 2025

Petitioner :- Akmal Alias Mohd. Aslam And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Singh,Sushma Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for State respondents.

The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 09.04.2025 being Case Crime No.10 of 2025 under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the present first information report has been lodged against the petitioners on false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that the basic constituents of an offence under Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 BNS) are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/ she committed suicide (Ref: M .Mohan Vs.State, AIR 2011 SC 1238). Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has also placed reliance on the judgment in M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 in which it was observed that essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are abetment and intention of accused to aid or instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide. However, insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is contended that in the present matter there is no evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such

act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 ; judgment of Bombay High Court in Rohit v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , Criminal Application (Apl) No.1052 of 2018 dt. 17th December, 2020 and the judgment of this High Court in Bail No.7333 of 2021 (Rahul v. State of U.P.) dt.2.8.2021. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in a case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5598 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent no.3, returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week.

All the respondents are accorded four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. One week, thereafter, is accorded to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR, provided they cooperate with the investigation in question.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Order Date :- 17.5.2025 SP/

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad