HR Manager cannot be prosecuted for abetment to suicide over denying leave or marking employee absent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resources department) of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) for having allegedly abetted the suicide of an employee by denying him leave, marking absent and initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that regular administrative actions such as initiation of disciplinary proceedings, marking an employee absent or rejecting leave applications in the course of performance of official duty by a HR professional, such as the present petitioner K. Swarnalatha, would not amount to abetment of suicide.

Also read | Supreme Court interprets what makes the offence of ‘abetment of suicide’

The judge agreed with senior counsel N.R. Elango, assisted by Priya Annie Zachariah, that the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Chennai ought not to have booked the abetment to suicide case against the petitioner just because a Junior Engineer in MTC had died by suicide.

The prosecution brought it to the notice of the court that the deceased employee, before taking the extreme step, had sent an e-mail to the Director General of Police as well as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police naming the present petitioner and a few other MTC officials of being responsible for his death.

He had accused higher officials of harassing him and causing unbearable mental distress. However, Mr. Elango told the court the deceased employee had a history of erratic behaviour and conduct unbecoming of his official duties. His service record reflected multiple suspensions, postponed increments, numerous fines and warnings.

Further, stating that the deceased had a persistent record of unauthorised absence, the court was told that he had a long standing domestic dispute too and had written letters to various authorities including former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on October 6, 2025 threatening to end his life

After recording the submissions, Justice Ilanthiraiyan relied upon the Supreme Court verdict in Abhinav Mohan Delkar versus State of Maharashtra (2026) wherein it was held that in cases of abetment to suicide, mens rea could not be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

“What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test,” the top court had said.

In the present case, “there is a complete lack of proximate nexus between the actions of the accused and the unfortunate death of the employee to suggest that he was driven to suicide by the immediate actions of the management. Consequently, continuing the criminal proceedings on the strength of the FIR and the subsequent alteration report would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law,” Justice Ilanthirayan concluded.

(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)