SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld criminal proceedings against a Budgam man accused of abetting the suicide of an 18-year-old woman, while quashing the case against his maternal grandfather for lack of specific allegations.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order on May 29, 2026, in CRM(M) No. 340/2023 titled Khalid Fayaz Ahanger and Others vs Union Territory of JK.
The petitioners were represented by advocate Sheikh Hilal, while the Union Territory was represented by Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh.
The case arose from FIR No. 35/2023 registered at Police Station Khansahib in Budgam district under Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the alleged suicide of Saima Javid.
According to the prosecution, police initially received an inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on April 11, 2023, regarding the woman’s suspicious death. During the inquiry, investigators allegedly found that the deceased had been in a relationship with petitioner Khalid Fayaz Ahanger for more than five years.
The prosecution alleged that on March 26, 2023, a day before the suicide, the deceased had gone to the residence of the accused to seek clarification regarding their relationship after learning that he had allegedly developed an interest in another girl.
The charge-sheet stated that she was allegedly humiliated, abused, branded as a woman of questionable character and forcibly turned out of the house by the accused and family members. According to the prosecution, she returned home in a distressed state and committed suicide by hanging herself on March 27, 2023.
The investigation further relied upon statements of witnesses who allegedly stated that the deceased had confided in them about her emotional distress and the conduct of petitioner No.1. Witnesses also claimed that when common acquaintances informed the accused about the deceased’s deteriorating mental condition and requested him to console her, he allegedly responded that “if she wanted to die, she was free to do so.”
After the completion of the investigation, the trial court framed charges against the accused under Sections 306 and 107 IPC on June 17, 2023, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that essential ingredients of abetment of suicide were absent and contended that there was no direct or proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the suicide.
The petitioners relied upon several Supreme Court rulings, including State of West Bengal vs Indrajit Kundu and Geo Varghese vs State of Rajasthan, to argue that mere harassment or breakdown of a relationship does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is clear mens rea and intentional instigation.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations disclosed not merely a failed relationship but sustained humiliation, rejection and emotional abandonment immediately preceding the suicide.
After hearing both sides, Justice Parihar observed that at the stage of framing of charge, courts are not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence but only determine whether the material raises grave suspicion against the accused.
The Court noted that the prosecution material prima facie disclosed a sequence of events involving “prolonged intimacy, sudden rejection, public humiliation, character assassination and subsequent indifference towards the emotional condition of the deceased.”
The High Court observed that the cumulative effect of these allegations could not be viewed in isolation and that the issues relating to mens rea, instigation and proximity between the accused’s conduct and the suicide could only be conclusively determined during trial.
“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.
Justice Parihar held that the material collected during the investigation disclosed “strong and sufficient grounds” for presuming the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC against petitioner No.1 and justified continuation of the trial.
However, the Court found that no specific overt act or intentional conduct had been attributed to petitioner No.2, the maternal grandfather of petitioner No.1, except a general allegation that the deceased was turned out of the house.
Holding that the proceedings against him were based “more on conjecture than legally admissible material,” the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings to that extent.
The Court also recorded that petitioner No.3 had died during the pendency of the proceedings and declared the case against that accused abated.
Partly allowing the petition, the High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial against petitioner No.1 in accordance with the law.
