VINOD KUMAR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB — CRM-M/51176/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 306. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC011238932022

Filing Number

CRM-M/74162/2022

Filing Date

29-Oct-2022

Registration No

CRM-M/51176/2022

Registration Date

03-Nov-2022

Judge

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Coram

Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

38.3 - PROCEEDING STAYED IN QUASHING ( 197 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 306
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD KUMAR

    Adv. LS SIDHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB

  2. 2.GURMIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice N.S. ShekhawatView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/51176/2022 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 40 dated 17.05.2021 against petitioner Vinod Kumar under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court found the basic ingredients of abetment completely missing: there was no clear mens rea, no direct/active act compelling the deceased to suicide, and no evidence of persistent cruelty or harassment. Merely performing debt recovery duties as a bank assistant manager does not constitute abetment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/51176/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/51176/2022 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 40 dated 17.05.2021 against petitioner Vinod Kumar under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court found the basic ingredients of abetment completely missing: there was no clear mens rea, no direct/active act compelling the deceased to suicide, and no evidence of persistent cruelty or harassment. Merely performing debt recovery duties as a bank assistant manager does not constitute abetment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case