Karnataka High Court
Mr. Vishwanath B.K vs The State By Basaveshwaranagara Police ... on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
CRL.P No. 4347 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4347 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. VISHWANATH B.K.,
S/O B.M.KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT 30, 5TH MAIN ROAD
POONAM KAILAS APARTMENT
2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION
Location: HIGH BENGALURU CITY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.DEVIKA M.B.,
W/O LATE VENKATESH A.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.437, 1ST 'C' CROSS
8TH 'A' MAIN ROAD
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
CRL.P No. 4347 of 2023
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI VISHWAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AS
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN CRIME
NO.90/2023 DATED 24.04.2023 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P.S. FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court calling in
question registration of a crime in Crime No.90 of 2023 for
offences punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC.
2. Heard Sri Balakrishna M.R, learned counsel appearing
for petitioner, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri Vishwas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant, W/o one
Venkatesh A. It is the averment in the complaint, that
Venkatesh A and accused No.1 were friends and had certain
financial transactions. Accused No.1 had lent certain money to
the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 and the
accused No.1 and other creditors appear to have pestered her
husband to return the money. Further allegation is that accused
No.1 forced the complainant's husband to execute a sale deed
in his favour in lieu of the loan that he had lent to him. It is,
therefore, the husband of the complainant dies by committing
suicide. The reason for death in the complaint is, getting
frustrated by the torture of accused No.1 and other creditors
who had lent money, left with no option, the husband of the
complainant committed suicide by hanging. The
petitioner/accused No.1 along with others are dragged into the
web of crime for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC for
abetment of suicide of the husband of the complainant. The
registration of the crime has driven accused No.1 to this Court
in the subject petition. This Court, in terms of an order dated
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
29-05-2023 had stayed further investigation qua accused No.1
which is in subsistence even as on date.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri
Balakrishna M R would contend that none of the ingredients
that are necessary to be present in a case of abetment to
suicide is present in the case at hand. The instigation by
accused No.1 is not to an extent that would drive the victim to
commit suicide. He would contend that the ingredients not
having been met, further investigation or trial against accused
No.1 would become an abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant would submit that there is direct
allegation against petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused
that they have tortured the husband of the complainant to sign
on the dotted line for execution of a sale deed in lieu of the
loan that was secured by the husband of the complainant and
therefore, left with no choice he had to commit suicide. The act
of abetment to commit suicide is clearly borne in the complaint,
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also
submit that it is a matter of investigation in the least as the
husband of the complainant dies in the incident and the death
should result atleast in an investigation against the
petitioner/accused No.1 or any other accused, as the case
would be.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
8. The friendship of the husband of the complainant and
the petitioner is a matter of record, as it is borne out in the
complaint itself. On a fateful day, the husband of the
complainant commits suicide. The commission of suicide leads
the 2nd respondent to register a complaint which becomes a
crime in Crime No.90 of 2023 for offences punishable under
Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. Since the entire issue has
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint in its entirety and the complaint reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ,
¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï
§¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.
EAzÀ,
zÉëPÁ JA.©
PÉÆÃA.ªÉAPÀmÉñï J
42 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À: £ÀA.437
1£Éà "¹" PÁæ¸ï,
8£Éà "J" ªÉÄÊ£ï, 3£Éà ºÀavÀ
4£Éà ¨ÁèPï, §¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ£ÀUÀgÀ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ
ªÀÈwÛ: UÀÈ»tÂ, eÁw:£ÁAiÀÄÄØ
¥ÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA.98862 30555.
«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñï J. gÀªÀgÀ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
jÃvÁå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃj ªÀÄ£À«.
***
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ UÀÈ»tÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñï J., 44 ªÀµÀð, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ gÀdvï
«., CvÉÛ D¢ü®Qëöäà ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀ£ÁzÀ «£ÉÆÃzïgÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ
ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñï J. gÀªÀgÀÄ ©.©.JA.¦. AiÀÄ PÁè¸ï-1 PÁAmÁæPÀÖgï DV
PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. EªÀgÀÄ PÁAmÁæPÀÖgï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ
ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ªÉÆøÀ ºÉÆÃV DyðPÀ ¸ÀAPÀµÀÖPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ
ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À §½ §rØUÁV ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ, 2015 jAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ §rØ PÀlÄÖªÀ
¸À®ÄªÁV CAzÁdÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 PÉÆÃnAiÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
»ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ «±Àé£Áxï, zsÀªÉÄÃðAzÀæ¨Á§Ä, ZÀAzÀÄæ, UÉÆæ ºÁUÀÄ E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£ÀªÀgÀ
§½ §rØUÁV ¸Á® ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. «±Àé£Áxï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ
¸Á® wÃj¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸Éïï CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¸Éïï rÃqï
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸Á®
wÃj¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀÝjAzÀ F jÃw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JA¢zÀÝgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F wAUÀ¼À 30£ÉÃ
vÁjÃRÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁ° ªÀiÁr E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß §zÀÄPÀ®Ä
©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ©Ã¢UÉ vÀgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ZÀAzÀÄæ JA¨ÁvÀ£ÀÄ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ
¨ÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. zsÀªÉÄÃðAzÀæ ¨Á§Ä ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ aPÀÌ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ SÁ° ZÉPï ºÁUÀÆ
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
¨ÁAqïUÀ½UÉ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¨ÉzÀj¹ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸Á® wÃj¸ÀzÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉÃ
¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß §zÀÄPÀ®Ä ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ UÉÆægÀªÀgÀÄ SÁ° ZÉPï
ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁAqï ¥ÉÃ¥ÀgïUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀt
ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß §zÀÄPÀ®Ä ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ
£ÀªÀÄä ¸Á® wÃj¸ÀÄ E®èªÁzÀgÉ J°èAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F
PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11:00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ UÀAfAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÄrzÀÄ mÉgɸïUÉ ºÉÆÃV §gÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ CzÀð UÀAmÉAiÀiÁzÀgÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PɼÀUÉ §gÀzÀ PÁgÀt
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃV £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV C°è EgÀ°®è £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä gÀÆAUÉ §AzÀÄ
£ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV C°èAiÀÄÆ EgÀ°®è £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨Ávï gÀÆA £À ¨ÁV®Ä ªÀÄÄaÑzÀÄÝ, ¨ÁV®Ä
vÀnÖ, PÀÆVzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ°®è £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ©VAiÀiÁV ¨ÁV®Ä vÀ¼Àî¯ÁV
¨ÁV®Ä vÉgÉ¢zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñï gÀªÀgÀÄ ©½ zÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀévÀ: vÀ£Àß
PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ £ÉÃtÄ ©VzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀĹzÀÄ ©zÀÝzÀÝgÀÄ. PÀÆqÀ¯Éà £ÁªÀÅ PÉ.¹.f. D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ ¥ÀjÃQë¸À¯ÁV ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£À ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀ «±Àé£Áxï zsÀªÉÄÃðAzÀæ ¨Á§Ä, ZÀAzÀÄæ, UÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ
EvÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£À CAvÀåQæAiÉÄ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤Ãr «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ ºÉýPÉ
¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
The entire narration in the complaint is of the financial
transactions that have happened between the husband of the
complainant and other creditors, one of whom is accused No.1.
The complaint also narrates that the accused No.1 along with
others has tortured the husband of the complainant to return
the money or sign, on the dotted line, for execution of a sale
deed in lieu of the loan that was advanced to the husband of
the complainant. Therefore, the crux of the issue is the
accused demanding the loan to be repaid by the husband of the
complainant.
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
9. Therefore, the issue for consideration is, whether the
demand of repayment of a loan that was lent resulting in
the death of the loanee would amount to abetment under
Section 306 of the IPC?
10. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows:
"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."
(Emphasis supplied)
For an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the
ingredients as obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC are
necessary to be met. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice
Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as
follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets
the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing."
(Emphasis supplied)
The issue in the lis is whether, the afore-narrated complaint
which captures the fact that led to registration of the complaint
would meet the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, for it to
become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The Apex
Court, in plethora of judgments, considering myriad
circumstances, which lead to the offence of abetment of
suicide, has in various judgments held, what would amount to
abetment and what would not. The Apex Court, in its latest
judgment in the case of PRABHU V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1
considering all the earlier judgments,, has delineated the
circumstances which would lead to becoming ingredients of
Section 107 of IPC, for it to become an offence under Section
306 of the IPC. The Apex Court, has held as follows:
"Offence under Section 306 IPC
2024 SCC Online SC 137
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
13. Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 talks
about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets
the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to
fine.
.. .. ..
15. In a recent judgment of this Court
in Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal
No. 1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of us
(Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC. The Court has held as follows:
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission
of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the
prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in
the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align
with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC.
This means the accused either encouraged the individual to
take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person
committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which
directly resulted in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh1, this
Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The
relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts
or omission or by a continued course of conduct created
such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation
may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger
or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation."
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated
by this Court in M. Mohan v. State2, as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word
"instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the others. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis
of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict
a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide."
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out
in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also
discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal3 in the following paragraphs:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her
life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on
the allegation of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act
to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution before he
could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the
instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there
seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord
between the deceased and the appellant and her
subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not
committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in
the commission of suicide by the deceased."
16. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon
this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements
of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
17. Where the words uttered are casual in nature
and which are often employed in the heat of the moment
between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is
expected to follow from the same, the same would not
amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami
Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438,
Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371,
Paragraph 12]
18. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be
shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission or by
a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the
accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618,
Paragraph 20]
19. Different individuals in the same situation react
and behave differently because of the personal meaning
they add to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605,
Paragraph 20]
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
20. There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The
accused must be shown to have played an active
role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act
to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu
Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707,
Paragraph 12-14]
21. The accused must have intended or known that
the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions
or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628]"
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court delineates the circumstances under which an
act would become an abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the
touchstone of what the Apex Court has held, it would become
unmistakably clear that demand of return of the loan amount to
the husband of the complainant and the husband of the
complainant unable to bear the demand of return of the loan
committing suicide, would not amount to an abetment, as
obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC, for it to become an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
11. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if further
proceedings in the aforesaid unequivocal facts and the
judgments rendered by the Apex Court are permitted to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19394
continue, it would become an abuse of the process of law and
result in miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.90 of 2023 pending before
the V Additional CMM, Bangalore stands quashed qua
accused No.1.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2023 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKP
