Ms. Harshal married the first applicant on January 3, 2021, and began living with her in-laws. Allegations surfaced that the family subjected her to severe mental and physical cruelty, treating her like a domestic worker. Despite reaching out to her parents for help, they advised her to adjust to her new family, suggesting that her troubles were typical for a newlywed.

In November 2021, Ms. Harshal and her husband moved to Bangalore for work, where her in-laws continued their abusive behavior. Following their return to Pune, tensions escalated. On May 28, 2023, after a heated phone call regarding divorce, Ms. Harshal locked herself in her room and tragically ended her life.

The applicants' counsel argued that there was a lack of evidence linking their actions to Ms. Harshal's suicide, noting that she had lived separately from her husband for three months prior to the incident. They also pointed to a twenty-day delay in filing the FIR, contending that the allegations did not warrant prosecution.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel emphasized the serious nature of the allegations, highlighting that Ms. Harshal had reported her suffering to her parents, who were unable to provide her with the necessary support. They argued that the proximity between the threats of divorce and Ms. Harshal's suicide pointed to a clear instigation.

Upon reviewing the case, the court found substantial evidence in the FIR indicating that Ms. Harshal faced ongoing cruelty from her in-laws and husband, which could have contributed to her decision to take her life. The court referenced Section 306 of the IPC, which pertains to abetment of suicide, stating that for a conviction to occur, there must be proof that the accused instigated the deceased to take that drastic step.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, the court reiterated that instigation must be of such intensity that the victim feels no choice but to commit suicide, emphasizing the importance of a close temporal connection between the instigatory act and the suicide.

The court ultimately ruled against quashing the FIR, reinforcing the notion that the allegations warranted a thorough investigation. The ruling reflects a commitment to addressing domestic abuse and holding perpetrators accountable, particularly in cases involving the tragic loss of life.

As the case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the critical need for support systems for those experiencing domestic violence and the importance of legal frameworks to protect victims.