'Used & Discarded Her As Though She Were A Mere Commodity': J&K&L High Court Upholds Abetment To Suicide Charge Against Boyfriend
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
6 Jun 2026 9:30 PM IST
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has partly allowed a petition challenging framing of charges under Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code in a case of alleged abetment of suicide.
The Court thus upheld the framing of charges against the boyfriend (petitioner No.1) who was in a five-year relationship with the deceased, observing that the material disclosed not just a failed romance but a pattern of humiliation, derogatory treatment, and callous indifference.
However, the Court quashed the proceedings against the maternal grandfather (petitioner No.2), noting that no specific role was attributable to him except a general allegation of turning the deceased out of the house.
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order passed by the learned Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Budgam), whereby charges for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 107 IPC were framed against the petitioners.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar, while observing that “the conduct attributed to petitioner No.1 reflects an attitude of having used and discarded the deceased as though she were a mere commodity,” held that “the material placed on record by the prosecution discloses strong and sufficient grounds for presuming the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against Petitioner no.1.”
However, regarding the grandfather, the Court found “no material demonstrating any intentional act on his part aimed at provoking, inciting, or facilitating the commission of suicide.”
It was on April 11, 2023, Police Station Khansahib received an inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding the suspicious death of one Saima Javid, who had committed suicide by hanging herself on March 27, 2023. During inquiry, it surfaced that the deceased had allegedly been in a relationship with petitioner No.1 (Khalid Fayaz Ahanger) for several years.
On the day preceding the occurrence, the deceased visited the house of petitioner No.1, where she was allegedly subjected to humiliation, abuse, and ill-treatment and was forcibly turned out. It was further alleged that petitioner No.1 used derogatory language against her, causing severe emotional distress. Unable to bear the humiliation, the deceased returned home and committed suicide.
The investigation revealed that the deceased had confided to certain witnesses about petitioner No.1's conduct. When witnesses informed petitioner No.1 that the deceased was in a depressed state and requested him to speak to and console her, he allegedly responded, “if she wanted to die, she was free to do so.” Charges were framed against petitioner No.1 and his maternal grandfather. They assailed this before High Court.
Court's Observations:
The Court first reiterated the settled legal position regarding framing of charges and stated that at this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence but only to ascertain whether the material discloses grave suspicion and sufficient grounds for presuming commission of the offence.
Examining the prosecution case, the Court noted that the deceased and petitioner No.1 were in a relationship for more than five years. The material indicated that the deceased had come to know that petitioner No.1 had developed interest in another girl and started avoiding her. Disturbed, she visited his residence on March 26, 2023 to seek clarification. Instead, she was allegedly humiliated, branded as a woman of questionable character, and forcibly turned out.
“The prosecution case is not founded merely upon a failed relationship or a refusal to continue a romantic association. Rather, the allegations disclose a sequence of events comprising prolonged intimacy, sudden rejection, public humiliation, character assassination and subsequent indifference towards the emotional condition of the deceased,” the Court observed.
The Court placed significant weight on the alleged statement of petitioner No.1 that when he was requested to console the deceased, he remarked that if she wished to die, she could do so. “Whether such statements were actually made and the evidentiary value thereof are matters which can only be tested during trial; however, at the present stage, the Court is not required to delve into the veracity or otherwise of such allegations,” the Court held.
The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where mere harassment or ordinary discord was held insufficient for abetment, noting that here the allegations included not only rejection but also humiliation and derogatory treatment immediately preceding the occurrence.
“Prima facie, the conduct attributed to petitioner No.1 reflects an attitude of having used and discarded the deceased as though she were a mere commodity,” the Court observed.
However, regarding petitioner No.2 (the maternal grandfather), the Court found that the material did not disclose any specific role attributable to him except the general allegation that the deceased was turned out of the house and subjected to humiliation.
“There is no material demonstrating any intentional act on his part aimed at provoking, inciting, or facilitating the commission of suicide. The continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2, therefore, appears to be founded more on conjecture than on legally admissible material,” the Court held.
The High Court thus partly allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings against petitioner No.2 (maternal grandfather). However, the Court upheld the framing of charges against petitioner No.1, directing the Trial Court to proceed ahead with the trial against him in accordance with law.
Case Title: Khalid Fayaz Ahanger & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
