Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash Suicide Abetment FIR Against Journalist, Advocate Over Allegedly Defamatory YouTube Interview

A Single Judge Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao observed:

“...specific allegations are levelled in the complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 gave an interview on Vedhan Media TV of the petitioner/accused No.6 in the presence of the petitioner/accused No.7, wherein they made defamatory statements against the deceased and assassinated her character. The said interview was uploaded on a YouTube channel and circulated on social media. Thereafter, basing on the said reason, the deceased committed suicide. The allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners prima facie disclose a cognizable offence under Section 108 of the BNS and the Investigating Officer has seized the suicide note of the accused of the deceased and the investigation is under progress..."

The Court was dealing with two criminal petitions filed by accused No.7, an advocate, and accused No.6, a journalist associated with Vedhan Media TV, seeking quashing of an FIR.

As per the complaint, the deceased was pursuing M.Sc. and was related to accused No.1. Accused No.1 allegedly wanted to marry her, but after he tested HIV positive, the deceased refused to proceed with the marriage.

It was alleged that, thereafter, accused No.1 developed a grudge against the deceased and, on 11.03.2026, entered her house when she was alone and injected his own blood into her body using a syringe, with the intention of infecting her with HIV. A separate case was registered against him for the offence under Section 109 (Attempt to Murder) BNS.

The complainant alleged that while the deceased was under severe mental stress and undergoing treatment, accused No.6 conducted an interview with accused Nos.2 (mother of accused 1) and 3 (brother of accused 1)  in the presence of accused No.7, a practising advocate. In the said interview, accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly made defamatory and derogatory statements and assassinated the deceased's character. The interview was uploaded on YouTube and circulated on social media.

It was further alleged that several persons posted derogatory and abusive comments on the said video, causing further mental agony to the deceased. On 10.04.2026, the deceased allegedly died by suicide. A five-page suicide note and a self-recorded video were stated to have been recovered.

Accused No.7, the advocate, argued that he had merely represented accused No.1 in a bail application in the earlier case and had been falsely implicated due to his professional engagement with the family. It was submitted that the only allegation against him was that he was present when the interview was conducted, and that mere presence did not constitute abetment of suicide.

The journalist, accused No.6, submitted that he had acted only in the course of his professional duties and had not instigated, provoked or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. He argued that conducting an interview and uploading it on YouTube, without any specific overt act of instigation, would not attract Section 108 BNS.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions, submitting that there were specific allegations that the petitioners, along with other accused, had entered into a criminal conspiracy and conducted the interview in which the deceased's character was assassinated. It was further submitted that the suicide note had been seized and that the statements of accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 specifically mentioned the role of the petitioners.

The Court noted that the complaint specifically alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 gave an interview on Vedhan Media TV, run by accused No.6, in the presence of accused No.7, and made serious allegations against the deceased. The video was uploaded on YouTube and circulated on social media, after which the deceased allegedly committed suicide.

The Court further noted that the Additional Public Prosecutor had placed on record a copy of the suicide note, wherein the deceased had specifically mentioned the reasons for taking the extreme step.

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that mere allegations of harassment, strained relations or isolated utterances are not sufficient to constitute abetment to suicide, and that there must be a clear, proximate and intentional act of instigation or aiding.

Distinguishing the said decision, the Court held that in the present case, there were specific allegations that defamatory statements were made against the deceased in the interview, her character was assassinated, and the interview was uploaded and circulated on social media.

“The allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners prima facie disclose a cognizable offence under Section 108 of the BNS and the Investigating Officer has seized the suicide note of the deceased and the investigation is under progress,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both criminal petitions.

Case Title: Seeloju Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana and another;

Sri Madupathi Vedhanth Swamy v. State of Telangana and another

Case No.: Criminal Petition Nos. 5635 and 5738 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 87

Appearance: Mr. G. Ashok Reddy representing Mr. B. Pavan for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.5635 of 2026; Mr. Kasoju Mahesh Chary for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.5738 of 2026; Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.