'Tum Tam' Remark Not Instigation to Suicide: Jharkhand HC Quashes BDO's FIR [Read Order]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a criminal proceeding against a Block Development Officer accused of abetting the suicide of a Panchayat Secretary, holding that addressing the deceased with the words 'Tum Tam' and 'Tere Mere' did not amount to instigation or any other offence alleged in the FIR.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Anvesha Ona, who was posted as Block Development Officer of Dumri, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025. The FIR had been registered under Sections 108 (abetment of suicide), 61 (criminal conspiracy), 316 (criminal breach of trust), 351 (criminal intimidation) and 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following the death of Panchayat Secretary Sukhlal Mahato.

The allegation against the petitioner was that she had misbehaved with the deceased by addressing him as 'tum tam mere tere' during an official meeting attended by other Panchayat Secretaries. The investigation was still pending and no chargesheet had been filed when the petition came up for hearing, a factor the petitioner's senior counsel specifically flagged before the Court at the outset of the arguments.

Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire FIR averments were taken as true, none of the offences alleged were made out. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Amudha v. State and Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh, it was argued that a casual remark likely to cause harassment in the ordinary course does not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC, which corresponds to Section 108 of the BNS, and that instigation must be in close proximity to the act of suicide to establish a direct causal nexus. It was further submitted that the deceased had been issued a show-cause notice for non-response to which an adverse Form K entry was made, that no property had been entrusted to the petitioner to attract Section 316, that no threat had been extended to attract Section 351, and that no insult aimed at provoking breach of peace had been committed to attract Section 352.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the statements of two Panchayat Secretaries recorded during investigation who stated that the Block Development Officer had not insulted the deceased in the meeting in question, and sought dismissal of the petition as without merit.

The Court, examining the ingredients of instigation under Section 45 of the BNS corresponding to Section 107 IPC, referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, which require a reasonable certainty of inciting the consequence and a continued course of conduct leaving the deceased with no option but to end her life. Applying this standard, the Court held that even the words attributed to the petitioner, which in any case were found unsubstantiated by witnesses examined during investigation, could not meet the threshold of instigation.

Merely using the words Tum Tam and Tere Mere cannot be termed as instigation to commit suicide.

the Court held, adding that even taking the entire allegation as true, the offence under Section 108 of the BNS was not made out against the petitioner.

On the remaining charges, the Court found that criminal conspiracy under Section 61 required a meeting of minds between persons indulging in the conspiracy, for which it found no material on record showing the petitioner's involvement. It held that criminal breach of trust under Section 316 required entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation, ingredients wholly absent from the FIR since there was no allegation that any property had ever been entrusted to the petitioner. On criminal intimidation under Section 351, the Court held that the words used could not, by any stretch of imagination, be read as a threat, which is the sine qua non of that offence. Similarly, on intentional insult under Section 352, the Court held that the words 'Tum Tam' and 'Tere Mere', spoken by a Block Development Officer to a Panchayat Secretary, could not be termed an intentional insult capable of provoking a breach of public peace.

Holding that none of the offences alleged in the FIR were made out even on a demurrer, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding along with the FIR in Dumri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 was quashed and set aside as against the petitioner, the petition was allowed, and the interim relief earlier granted to the petitioner on 24.07.2025 was vacated as having become infructuous.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Singh, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Utpal Kant, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Anvesha Ona versus The State of Jharkhand

[Read Order]