Karnataka High Court

Sri. Vikas V vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5496/2020

BETWEEN

SRI. VIKAS V.,
S/O VIJAYANANDA S,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS,
ANJINAPPA LAYOUT,
NARAYANAPURA MAIN ROAD, KOTHANURU,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
                                               ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAO S.S., ADVOCATE]

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      BY KENGERI POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    SRI. N. GOPAL HEGDE,
      S/O LATE SOMAPPA HEGDE,
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
      R/AT ANUGRAHA NILAYA,
      34TH NEKKILADI VILLAGE,
      UPPINANGADI, PUTTUR TALUK,
      DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 325.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2]
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7571/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE XXXII
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.7571/2020 registered for offence

punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Smt. Yashoda K.P., learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1, Sri. A. Keshava Bhat, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Sans details, facts as projected by the prosecution

are as follows:

On 14.11.2019, daughter of the respondent No.2 -

complainant dies committing suicide. Pursuant to the death of

the daughter of the respondent No.2 - complainant, the brother

of the deceased also gives a statement on 16.11.2019 that the

death of his sister, is though unnatural, nobody can be blamed

for it and he has no suspicion on anyone. Time passes by, three

months later, respondent No.2 - complainant comes in

possession of certain messages that were exchanged between the

petitioner and the daughter of respondent No.2 - complainant.

This lead to respondent No.2 registering a complaint on

02.02.2020 contending that the death of his daughter was due

to the provocation of the petitioner. It was also noticed by the

respondent No.2 - complainant through the messages that both

the petitioner and the deceased were in relationship and that

had been strained. Based upon this complaint registered on

02.02.2020, the crime is registered against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC alleging

abetment to suicide of the daughter of respondent No.2 -

complainant. After which, the police conduct investigation and

have filed charge sheet alleging that the material during

investigation would point at the petitioner for abetting the

suicide of daughter of respondent No.2 - complainant. It is at

that juncture, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in

the subject petition.

4. The 2nd respondent is the complainant whose

daughter died by committing suicide on 14-11-2019. On her

death, the brother of the deceased who was questioned by the

police gave a statement that the death of his sister, though

unnatural did not suspect anyone. Thus it was declared to be

an unnatural death and treated as UDR. Time passed by. After

about 3 months, the 2nd respondent comes in possession of a

mobile phone of the deceased in which he noticed heated

exchange of messages between the petitioner and the deceased.

This discovery led to registration of complaint on 2-02-2020 for

the death that had occurred on 14-11-2019 alleging that the

petitioner had abetted the deceased for such death. Based on

the said complaint, a FIR is registered against the petitioner for

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC alleging

abetment to suicide by the deceased daughter of the

complainant/2nd respondent. The police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet in the matter for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of the IPC. It is at that juncture the petitioner

knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, Sri

Srinivas Rao S.S., would vehemently argue and contend that for

driving home ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, the

ingredients as found in Section 107 of the IPC should be

necessarily present in the complaint, failing which, a proceeding

under Section 306 of the IPC would be an abuse of the process

of law. He would submit that there is no evidence available even

during the investigation or in the final report filed by the police

which would point at the offence against the petitioner. He

would place reliance upon following judgment of the Apex in the

case of MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA AND OTHERS V.

SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJI RAO ANGRE AND OTHERS1.

5(1). On the other hand, learned counsel representing

respondent No.2/complainant, Sri A.Keshava Bhat taking this

(1988) 1 SCC 692

Court through circumstances which led to registration of the

complaint after three months of the date of incident, submits

that it is the retrieval of the messages between the deceased and

the accused as also the fact that the petitioner was the last

person whom the deceased met and spoken to resulted in

registration of the crime. He would submit that quashment of

proceedings in the peculiar circumstances of this case is not

warranted as it is a matter for trial for the petitioner to come out

clean.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are as found in the

complaint or in the final report that is filed by the police. The

events that have happened and narrated hereinabove need not

be revisited. The suicide happens on 14-11-2019. No complaint

was registered against the petitioner then; the brother of the

deceased also gave a statement that nobody was responsible for

the death of his sister. The said statement of the brother was

recorded immediately two days after the incident i.e., on

16.11.2019. The discovery happens later when the mobile phone

of the deceased was seen by her father. Later call record details

were also retrieved. The messages and call record details led to

registration of the crime. In the circumstances, it is germane to

notice the complaint that is registered by the father of the

deceased on 02-02-2020 and the same is extracted hereunder

for the purpose of quick reference:

"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ªÉÄÃ°£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Àj ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 33 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ ¸Àj¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 7 jAzÀ 8 ªÀgÀÄµÀUÀ¼À PÁ® SÁ¸ÀV PÀA¥À¤¬Äè GzÉÆåÃVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀ¼À ªÉÊªÁ»PÀ fÃªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ C£ÉÆåÃ£ÀåvÉ ¸Á¢ü¸À®Ä E§âjUÀÆ C¸ÁzsÀéªÁzÁUÀ DPÉ ºÁUÀÆ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ M¦àUÉAiÀÄ «ZÉÑÃzsÀ£À ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, F «zÁåªÀiÁ£À DPÉAiÀÄ ºÉvÀÛªÀgÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ vÀ¼ÀªÀÄ¼ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥Àr¹vÉÃ ¤¹ DPÉ DPÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀdªÁV ¹éÃPÀj¹, vÀ£ÀßzÉÃ DzÀ SÁ¸ÀV GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄUÀß¼ÁV £ÉªÀÄä¢AiÀÄ fÃªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ¼ÀÄ. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁV DPÉ 156/1, 5£ÉÃ CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛ, ²æÃPÀÈµÀÚ UÁqÀð£ï, gÁdgÁeÉÃ±Àéj £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 56009 © F «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ¼ÀÄ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:14-11-2019£ÉÃ UÀÄgÀÄªÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåzÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÉÃtÄ ©VzÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è ±ÀªÀªÁV ¥ÀvÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV

¸ÁªÀ£À¦àzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ CAzÁf¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ 15/11/2019 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ C©ü£ÀAzÀ£É ºÉUÉØ PÉAUÉÃj oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.

¨Á®å¢¤AzÀ¯ÉÃ J¯Áè ZÀlÄªÀnPÉAiÀÄ°è §ºÀ¼À QæÃAiÀiÁ²Ã®ªÁV ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F jÃwAiÀiÁV ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV ¸ÁªÀ£Àß¦àgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. F »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è DPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁuÁ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀwUÉ WÀl£É ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹zÀ »A¢£À gÁwæ CªÀ¼À ¸ÀºÀzÉÆåÃV «PÁ¸À J£ÀÄßªÀ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀ MAzÉÃ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è GzÉÆåÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛ. DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀwUÉ WÀl£É ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹zÀ »A¢£À gÁwæ ¢£ÁAPÀ (13/11/2019) C¯ÉèÃ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr, ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸Àw¬ÄAzÀ G¨ÉÃgï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ mÁåQì ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ»w ®©ü¹zÀÄÝ, ¸À¢æ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ DUÀªÀÄ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤UÀðªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §ÄPï ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. §ºÀ¼À DwäÃAiÀÄgÁVzÀÝ «PÁ¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ E§âgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä°è ºÀAaPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÀªÁUÀ°, §½PÀzÀ ¢£ÀªÁUÀ° WÀl£É ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ »A¢£À gÁwæ DPÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉVzÀÝ «PÁ¸À ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è PÁtÂ¹PÉÆ¼ÀîzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ ¸Á«£À°è £ÉÃgÀ AiÀiÁ zÀÄµï¥ÉæÃuÁvÀäPÀ ¥ÁvÀæ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÉA§ ±ÀAPÉ ªÀÄÆqÀÄwÛzÉ.

EzÀPÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÉA§AvÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàgÀ ¸Á«£À »A¢£À gÁwæ (13/11/2019) DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆ¼ÀV¤AzÀ KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAWÀµÀðªÁUÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ ªÀ¸À» ¸ÀªÀÄÄZÀÒAiÀÄzÀ PÉ¼ÀV£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹UÀgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À °TvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ (ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeï ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï) ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÉÌ C²é¤AiÀÄÄ ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ GwÛj¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «PÁ¸À£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀAWÀµÀðªÀÄAiÀÄ ¥Àj¹Üw EvÉÛ£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¸ÀÄªÀAwzÉ. WÀl£É ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹zÀ ¢£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À §½PÀ £ÀªÉA§gï 17£ÉÃ 2019 PÉÌ C²é¤ DPÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ°è

¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä C°èUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂ¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AwgÀÄUÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀiÁ£ÀAiÀiÁ£ÀzÀ nPÉÃmï PÀÆqÁ RjÃ¢¹zÀÄÝ DPÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÉÆäA¢UÉ vÀÄA¨Á ¸ÀAvÀ¸À¢AzÀ ºÀAaPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼ÉÃ. F J¯Áè ¸ÀºÀd «zÁåªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ M«ÄäAzÉÆªÉÄä¯É §zÀÄQ£À°è ¤gÁ¸ÀQÛ vÁ¼À®Ä vÀ£ÀÆä®PÀ KPÁKQ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀt AiÀiÁ ¥ÉæÃuÉ ¤ÃrzÀ CA±ÀªÉÃ£ÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÁqÀÄ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀiÁVzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:14/11/2019£ÉÃ UÀÄgÀÄªÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ «PÁ¸À£À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§æ 9740212638 ¸ÀASÉå ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ïUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£Á¬Ä¹ ¨É½UÉÎ UÀAmÉ 10.49 PÉÌ 10.56 PÉÌ 10.57 PÉÌ PÀæªÀÄªÁV 5 ¤«ÄµÀ, 97 ¸ÉPÉAqïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀvÀÄÛ ¤«ÄµÀ (10) ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. D §½PÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. ¨É½UÉÎ UÀAmÉ 10.09 PÉÌ, 11.10 PÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ 11.34 PÉÌ ¸ÀvÀÛ PÀgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÉÃ «PÁ¸À£À ¸ÀASÉå¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ïUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, «Ä¸ï PÁ¯ï DV zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß ¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV «PÁ¸À£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð«zÀÄÝ ¸Á«Ä¥ÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ «PÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦æAiÀiÁAPÀ PÁgÀtªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ °TvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÉÃd£ÀÄß «PÁ¸À£À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛ¼É. C®èzÉÃ §ºÀ¼À DwäAiÀiÁVzÀÝ «PÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ, vÁ£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ QÃ°PÉÌ «PÁ¸À£À §½ EgÀÄªÀ °TvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ CA±À PÀÆqÀ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï£À°è zÁR¯ÁVzÉ.

MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÀºÀd ¸Á«ÄÃ¥ÀåvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ DvÀäºÀvÀÛAiÉÄ WÀmÁ£ÁªÀ½AiÀÄ §½PÀ, «PÁ¸À DPÉAiÀÄ §AzsÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸À¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ. ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï£À°è «PÁ¸À£À DwäÃAiÀÄvÉ, CªÀ¤AzÀ DzÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄ £À°ªÀÅUÀ¼À J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ awæÃPÀgÀtUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. §ºÀ¼À DwäÃAiÀÄvÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä°ègÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV DvÀåºÀvÉåUÉÊAiÀÄÄªÀ ¸À¤ßªÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß D ªÀåQÛAiÉÄÃ («PÁ¸À) ¸ÀÈ¶¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÉÃ? D ªÀåQÛ AiÀiÁ («PÁ¸À£À) ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖªÀgÀÄ

»A¢£À gÁwæ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀwAiÀÄ°è G¼ÀÄzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄ§ºÀÄzÉÃ? JA¨É¯Áè ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß §®ªÁV PÁqÀ¯ÁgÀA©ü¹zÉ. F §UÉÎ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀAUÀæ»¹gÀÄªÀ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ¸ÀAzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉV£À PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ F zÀÆj£ÉÆA¢UÀ ®UÀwÛPÀj¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁ£ÀågÁzÀ vÁªÀÅ F zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀÄÆ¯ÁUÀæ ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ «PÁ¸À£À §UÉÎ J¯Áè jÃwAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV £ÀqÉ¹ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è PÀ¼ÀPÀ½AiÀÄ «£ÀAw.

¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁV zÁgÀÄt CAvÀå PÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C²é¤AiÀÄ ¸Á«£À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ªÀiÁr, vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀPÀgÁvÀäPÀ ¸ÀàAzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

                                                                EwÃ vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹
     ¢£ÁAPÀ:02/02/2020                                               ¸À»/-
     ¸ÀÜ¼À: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ                                       (J£ï.UÉÆÃ¥Á® ºÉUÉØ)

     ¸ÀÆZÀ£É: ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ
     ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï (C²é¤ ºÉUÉØAiÀÄªÀgÀ) oÁuÉUÉ ¤ÃrzÉ

Ashwininitte(GMAIL ID) [email protected] Password:

¢£ÁAPÀ:02/02/2020 gÀAzÀÄ 18.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ °TvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁuÁ £ÀA:25/2020 PÀ®A 206 L¦¹ jÃvÁå PÉÃ¸ÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

8. The narration in the complaint if noticed would

unmistakably reveal that the petitioner was the last person with

whom the daughter had met and spoken over phone. The

presence of the petitioner on the previous night with the

daughter of the complainant is also mentioned in the complaint.

This is further established by the police when the final report

was filed after investigation. The allegation even in the final

report is for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC

against the petitioner for having abetted commission of suicide

by the deceased. The final report reads as follows:

"¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-8 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÀÄÈvÉ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ 32 ªÀµÀð, JA§ÄªÀ¼À£ÀÄß FUÉÎ JgÀqÀÄªÀgÉ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¤w£ï ºÉUÉØ JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÀ fÃªÀ£ÀzÀ°è ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ E®èzÀ PÁgÀt PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À ZËPÀnÖ£À°è «ªÁºÀ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, FUÉÎ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄªÀgÉ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÀÄªÉ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÁzÀ EzÉÃ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, PÉAUÉÃj, GvÀÛgÀ½î ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀÈµÁÚ UÁqÀð£ï 5£ÉÃ PÁæ¸ï, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.156/1, ¸ÁQë-15 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÁ mÉPï ¥ÁPïð£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ CAPÀt- 4gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ »A¢£À ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ:13-11- 2019gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ªÀÄÈvÉ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ gÀªÀgÀ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÆr ¨É½UÉÎ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÉAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï£À°è ¨ÁrUÉ mÁåQì §ÄPï ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14-11-2019£ÉÃ UÀÄgÀÄªÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÉAiÀÄÄ «PÁ¸À£À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9740212538 UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À PÁ® ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ, §ºÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ F WÀl£É £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄÈvÉ C²é¤ ºÉUÉØ vÀ£Àß ¸Á«UÉ «PÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦æAiÀiÁAPÁ PÁgÀtªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ °TvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄ¸ÉÃeï «PÁ¸À£À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:14-11-2019 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß

¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 01-00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 01-30 UÀAqÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÀÆ E®èzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¼ÀV¤AzÀ ¯ÁPï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÒªÀtÂUÉ C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝ ¹°AUï ¥sÁå¤UÉ PÉÃ§¯ï ªÉÊgï¤AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀåºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É.

DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ®A C£ÀéAiÀÄ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ F zÉÆµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛ."

9. The charge sheet supra clearly narrates the petitioner

staying with the deceased on the previous night, booked a taxi

from the phone of the deceased when he moved out of the house

on the next day and after the petitioner moved out of the house,

conversation had gone on for long time with the deceased. The

petitioner and the deceased have had a sort of living in

relationship. Heated messages on what has happened between

the petitioner and the deceased are found during the

investigation. The complaint and the charge sheet undoubtedly

link the petitioner to the offence punishable under Section 306

of the IPC albeit prima facie. The ingredients of Section 107 of

the IPC which deal with abetment is prima facie found in the

final report submitted by the police. Therefore, it is for the

petitioner to come out clean in the trial as serious disputed

questions of fact will have to be answered in a full-fledged trial.

There is no document that is so unimpeachable that is placed

before this Court in these proceedings warranting interference in

the peculiar facts of this case. Reference being to the judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH2 in the circumstances is apposite. The Apex

Court in the said judgment has held as follows:

"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the

(2021) 9 SCC 35

investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded.

If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.

10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has

been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.

11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific

performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.

... ... ... ...

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."

In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court

supra, the petitioner will have to come out clean in the trial.

10. Insofar as judgments relied on by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner in the case of K.V. PRAKASH BABU

v. STATE OF KARNATAKA3 or KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE

(2017) 11 SCC 176

OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER4, there can be no qualm

about the principles enunciated therein, as one solitary incident

without there being any evidence on record, the proceedings for

abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be

made out. The judgment in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA

(supra) also follows the same principle. If ingredients under