Smt. B R Rathna vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4538 Kant

                              -1-
                                    CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 238 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. B R RATHNA
W/O LATE UK VISHNU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/AT: #66/1, FARM HOUSE
SRIRAMPURA POST
MYSURU - 570 008.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY MS KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE A/W
    SRI H S CHANDRA MOULI SR. COUNSEL)

AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 092.

REPRESENTED BY:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)


      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2021
PASSED BY THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46), IN SC NO.647/2018 AND
ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                       CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022


                            ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being unsuccessful in getting order of discharge by

the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner had filed discharge application under

Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.")

before the Trial Court seeking for discharge from the case

which is registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.2

is the sister of the deceased. Accused No.1 is the husband of

accused No.2. It is stated that, after retirement, the deceased

along with her daughter went to Mysuru and started residing

separately, believing that, accused Nos.1 and 2 would take care

of her. It is further stated in the complaint that, accused Nos.1

and 2 conspired together and induced the deceased to hand

over the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and also Rs.3,00,000/-, on

the pretext that, they would return the said amount. It is

further stated that, accused No.1 had purchased the car in his

name in the said amount. When the deceased demanded for

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

repayment of the amount, both accused Nos.1 and 2 insulted

and abused in a filthy language and also instigated the

deceased to commit suicide. Being frustrated and annoyed of

the instigation and abuse of the petitioners, the deceased

committed suicide by leaving a death note mentioning the

reason for the suicide. A complaint came to be lodged by the

daughter of the deceased. The respondent police registered

the case in Crime No.296/2011 and conducted the investigation

and submitted the charge sheet.

4. Heard Ms.Keerthana Nagaraj, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in

rejecting the discharge application are perverse, illegal and

opposed to facts and law.

6. It is further contended that, the entire allegations

even though made against both accused Nos.1 and 2, the

suicide note discloses the allegations against accused No.1. On

careful perusal of the entire charge sheet, no materials are

produced by the prosecution to substantiate the involvement of

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

the petitioner herein or the ingredients of the provision of

Section 306 of IPC cannot be attracted against the petitioner.

The Trial Court ought to have considered the charge sheet

materials properly and discharged the petitioner.

7. It is further contended that, even on careful reading

of the complaint, except some bald and absurd allegations

against the petitioner direct involvement or instigation to

commit suicide has not forthcoming. The Trial Court erred in

rejecting the application of discharge. Making such submission,

learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the revision

petition and set aside the order of rejection of discharge

application filed by the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

(for short 'HCGP') justifying the order of rejection of discharge

application filed by the petitioner and submits that, the

complaint filed by the daughter of the deceased and statement

of other witnesses prima facie disclose the case against the

petitioner and accused No.1. The accused No.1 and the

petitioner herein are the husband and wife. It is alleged in the

said complaint that, the petitioner and accused No.1 induced

the deceased to pay the amount to accused No.1 and the

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

petitioner and they utilized the said amount for their own use.

When the deceased demanded for repayment of the said

amount, the petitioner and accused No.1 have abused, insulted

and humiliated the deceased.

9. It is further submitted that, a private complaint

was lodged by the deceased in that regard shows that there

was a strained relationship amongst the petitioner, accused

No.1 and the deceased. It is the further submission of learned

HCGP that, while considering the application for discharge, the

Trial Court has to see prima facie materials to frame the

charge. Since there are materials to proceed against the

accused No.1 and the petitioner, the Trial Court rightly rejected

the application. Having submitted thus, learned HCGP justified

the order of Trial Court and prays to dismiss the petition.

10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the

judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my

consideration are:

i) Whether the order passed by the Trial Court

in rejecting the application filed under Section 227

of Cr.P.C. is justifiable against the petitioner?

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

ii) Whether the petitioner has made out

grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by

the Trial Court in rejecting the discharge

application?

11. It is an admitted fact that, the deceased was the

sister of the petitioner and she was residing at Mysuru, after

her retirement, separately along with her daughter. The

complaint averments discloses that, there are several monetary

transactions took place between them and all is not well in the

said relationship due to the monetary transaction. It is alleged

that, the petitioner along with her husband induced the

deceased to pay the amount with an intention to knock off the

same. When the deceased came to know that the accused

No.1 and the petitioner were exceeding their limits in the

monetary transactions, the deceased demanded for repayment

of the amount. When accused No.1 and the petitioner refused

to pay the same, the deceased had filed a private complaint by

issuing notice to accused No.1.

12. On careful perusal of the notice issued by the

deceased before filing private complaint discloses that, the

entire allegations were leveled against accused No.1 and the

Manager, Vijaya Bank, Mysuru. In the said notice and the

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

private complaint, nowhere the name of the petitioner was

mentioned. This aspect should have been considered by the

Trial Court while appreciating the charge sheet material in

dealing with the discharge application.

13. Now, it is relevant to refer the provision of Section

306 of IPC which reads thus:

"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

14. On careful reading of the above said provision, it

appears that, to constitute an offence of abetment to commit

suicide, the instigation or cruelty to commit suicide is sine qua

non. It is also important that, the instigation or cruelty should

be made within a relevant period or before the victim commits

suicide. It is also relevant to note that, the conduct of the

accused must be necessary to drive the victim to commit

suicide.

15. In the present case, except mentioning the name of

the petitioner in the complaint, no particular event, incident or

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

instigation was mentioned in the said complaint against the

petitioner. If there is no specific allegation made out against

the petitioner, asking the petitioner to face the trial, certainly,

would be a futile exercise. The Trial Court committed error in

arriving at a conclusion that, there are materials against the

petitioner to frame the charge, which appears to be erroneous

and illegal and the order of rejection of discharge application

dated 20.09.2021 required to be set aside.

16. In the light of the observations made above, the

points which arose for my consideration are answered as

under:-

      Point No.(i)      - "Negative"

      Point No.(ii)     - "Affirmative"

17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 20.09.2021 in S.C.No.647/2018

on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-46) is

hereby set aside.

CRL.RP. NO.238 OF 2022

(iii) The petitioner is discharged for the offence

under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSS