Karnataka High Court

Mr Premachandra vs Mr G T Nanjareddy on 7 March, 2024

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6273 OF 2019
                         C/W
           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6085 OF 2019

IN CRL.P NO.6273/2019
BETWEEN:

     MR. PREMACHANDRA
     SON OF P S APPU
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     DIRECTOR, VALLEY SCHOOL,
     RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 082

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    MR G T NANJAREDDY
      SON OF THIMMAREDDY
      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
      RESIDING AT VALLEY SCHOOL QUARTERS
      RACHANAMADU, KENGERI HOBLI
      BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
      BENGALURU-560 082

2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            2


     BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
     KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION
     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
     BENGALURU-560 001

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI Y.HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1)


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
IN S.C.NO.92/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 306, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND ETC.,


IN CRL.P NO.6085/2019
BETWEEN:


1.    SAGAR
      WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE
      IN PLACE OF SAGAR PRINCE
      S/O A G GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
      ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
      THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU
      KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU
      THATGUNI POST-560 082.

2.    JAYARAM
      S/O LATE SURYANARAYAN
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      SECRETARY
      THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU
                           3


     KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU
     THATGUNI POST-560082.

3.   VARGEESH
     WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE
     IN PLACE OF K C VARGHESE
     S/O K.V.CHACKO (LATE)
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     FINANCE MANAGER
     THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU
     KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU
     THATGUNI POST-560 082.

4.   RAMAMURTHY G
     S/O GOVINDRAJ K V
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     MAINTENANCE MANAGER
     THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU
     KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU
     THATGUNI POST-560082.

5.   GOVINDA
     WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE
     IN PLACE OF GOVINDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     S/O VENKATAPPA
     LABOUR
     THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU
     KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU
     THATGUNI POST-560082.

                                        ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. MANASA B RAO, ADVOCATE)
                            4


AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION
     HAROHALLI CIRCLE, RAMANAGARA
     REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT BUILDING-562 112.

2.   G T NANJAREDDY
     S/O THIMMA REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     THE VALLEY SCHOOL, QUARTERS,
     RACHANAMADU, KENGERI HOBLI
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560082

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.R. PTAIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI T. SUNIL & SRI K.V.MUKESH, ADVOCATES FOR R2)


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY
RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.15/2018 AND ALSO
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.92/2022 ON THE FILE OF
THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU
(RURAL), BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 306, 504 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.


     THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS     ON   06.03.2024, COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    5


                                 ORDER

These two captioned petitions are filed by the accused

seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in

S.C.No.92/2022 on the file of the VIII Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,

for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one

Radhamma who is the wife of respondent No.1/complainant

was employee of the Valley School. The Executive

Committee of the Krishnamurthy Foundation of India

resolved to fix the age of superannuation at 55 years.

Pursuant to decision taken in the meeting held on

30.05.1995, the retirement age of all the staff members

and employees of the Valley School was fixed at 55 years.

The wife of respondent No.1 was found floating in the pond

next to the campus on 09.01.2018 at around 7.15 p.m.

The respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before respondent

No.2 alleging that his wife Smt. Radhamma has committed

suicide due to an alleged altercation she had with Mr. Sagar

Prince, Jayaram S., K.C.Varghese, G.Ramamurthy and

Govindappa on 09.01.2018 at around 1.00 p.m. Based on

the complaint, respondent No.2 registered a crime and has

laid charge sheet against the petitioners in both the

petitions.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners in both the petitions reiterating the grounds

would vehemently argue and contend that the allegations

made in the complaint, FIR and charge sheet, even if

accepted in entirety, the said materials do not prima facie

constitute any case against the petitioners. Learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6273/2019

would vehemently argue and contend that petitioner is a

Fellow Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad who

has done his M.Sc. in Chemistry from Delhi University and

in his career spanning over 40 years has served as a

Professor of Financial Management in several management

institutions. He would further point out that he has been a

visiting/adjunct Professor at the Indian Institute of

Management, Ahmedabad for over 10 years and is currently

advising the Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur and

was a fulltime faculty for 9 years at the Indian Institute of

Management, Bengaluru. Learned Senior Counsel would

further point out that petitioner was appointed as Director

to the Valley School in September 2016 and petitioner had

no occasion to meet either respondent No.1 or deceased at

any point of time.

4. Reiterating the grounds, he would point out that

wife of respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved by the action of

the Valley School in relieving wife of respondent No.1,

questioned the age of retirement by raising an industrial

dispute in I.D.No.46/2017. He would also point out that

respondent No.1 who was the employee of Valley School

retired on 28.02.2011 and he also raised a dispute. He

would point out that there is amicable settlement between

management and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1's wife

filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.56/2018. Referring to

the death note, learned Senior Counsel would point out that

the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 are

not made out. On these set of grounds, he would contend

that this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its

inherent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the judgments

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

V.P.Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab and Ors.1

and Mohit Singhal & Another vs. The State of

Uttarakhand & Ors.2

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners in Crl.P.No.6085/2019 has persuaded this Court

to examine the death note. Referring to the contents of

death note, he would contend that there are absolutely no

allegations relating to abetment. Referring to the

MANU/SC/1806/2022

Crl.Appeal No.3578 of 2023 Dtd: 01.12.2023

allegations in the death note, he has taken strong exception

that respondent No.1 has improvised the narration while

lodging the complaint. He would also point out that there

are no specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6.

Learned Senior Counsel while seeking quashing of the

proceedings has placed reliance on the following

judgments:

1) Nettai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal - 2005 (2) SCC 659;

2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat - 2010 (8) SCC 628;

3) Swati Pai vs. State of Karnataka and Others - W.P.No.28602/2015 Dtd: 07.12.2015;

4) State of Kerala vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair - AIR 2015 SC 3351;

5) Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 2002 SC 1998;

6) Vaijnath vs. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2018 (7) SCC 781;

7) Arunabha Bandyopadhyay vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Crl.P.No.6038/2014 Dt: 19.01.2016;

8) Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -

1995 (3) Supp. SCC 438;

9) Gopal Krishna vs. Sharad Kumar Shirali and Others - 2015 (1) KCCR 868;

10) V.V.Singara Vellu vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.3095/2022 Dtd: 16.06.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1/defacto complainant referring to the

material on record would point out that when the matter

was seized before the Industrial Tribunal and Court, the

accused forcibly disconnected the power supply. He would

point out that respondent No.1's wife was a Labour Leader

and was attending the problems of employees of the Valley

School. Referring to the material on record, he would

contend that there is sufficient prima facie evidence

indicating that accused have harassed his wife which

compelled the deceased to commit suicide. He would point

out that there is sufficient material indicating that there was

instigation by all the accused. However, counsel appearing

for respondent No.1/complainant fairly concedes that there

are no specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6.

7. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in

the case of Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others3

and it is argued that there are around 16 witnesses and

therefore, this is not a fit case where indulgence is

warranted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. Learned HCGP arguing in the same vein would

contend that there is sufficient material to proceed against

the petitioners. Referring to the charge sheet materials, he

would point out that the deceased was harassed by all the

accused and there is sufficient material indicating that there

was provocation and instigation at the accused end which

forced wife of respondent No.1 to commit suicide.

AIR 2020 SC 909

9. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the complainant

and learned HCGP.

10. Except respondent No.1, all other witnesses are

official witnesses. The entire prosecution case hinges on

the death note. On meticulous examination of the death

note, what emerges is that deceased has been the voice of

the staff working in the Valley School. She has also claimed

that she has been fighting for the cause of employees of

Valley School who are being ill-treated by the management.

There are also allegations that accused No.3/petitioner No.2

has amassed wealth by unfair means. Similar allegations

are made against accused No.4/petitioner No.3 that he is

from Kerala and he owns property worth rupees crores. In

the death note, she also narrates as to how one Sudha

Premnath who owns 200 acres of land in Kaigil in Andhra

Pradesh and is mishandling the funds of Krishnamurthy

Foundation of India. In the death note, she also refers as

to how some of the employees of the Valley School are

exploited and are given weekly wages instead of monthly

wages. I deem it fit to cull out these relevant allegations in

the death note:

"ªÀVð¸ï EªÀgÀÄ PÉÃgÀ¼ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ D¹Û PÉÆÃn PÉÆÃnUÀlÖ¯É ¨ÉÃPÁzÀµÀÄÖ PÉÃgÀ¼ÀzÀ°è EzÉ E°è£À ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÀAqÀÄ »rAiÀÄÄvÁÛ ºÉÃ½ EªÀ£ÀzÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌªÉ E®è zÁPïªÀÄä C£ÀÄßªÀ CªÀÄä PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ vÀÄA¨Á ªÀµÀð CªÀÄä¤UÉ UÀAl®Ä PÁ¬Ä¯É §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt PÉÆr D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ DZÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀ ¥Á¥À PÁ¬Ä¯ÉAvÀ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ EzÉ¯Áè £Á£ÀÄ PÉÃ½zÉ CzÀPÉÌ EµÀÖ EzÀÝgÉ EgÀÄ E®è JAzÀgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆÃªÀ£ÀÄß wA¢zÉÝÃ£É. ¸ÀÄzsÁ ¥ÉæÃªÀiï£Áxï, ¸ÀÄzsÁ EªÀgÀÄ PÉÊV¯ï C£ÀÄß 200 JPÉgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ EzÉ DAzsÀæ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÌÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉ C°è §qÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃ« JAzÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄAPÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀÄ PÀÈµÀÚªÀÄÆwð ¥ËAqÉÃµÀ£ï ¸ÉÃjzÉ C°è EgÀÄªÀ ¨É®è ¸ÀPÀÌgÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ vÀÄ¥Àà, CQÌ, ¨ÉÃ¼É, fÃjUÉ J¯Áè ¥ÀzsÁxÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ C°èAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°è ªÀiÁgÀÄw EzÀÝPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C£ÀGªÀÄw PÉÆnÖ «ÃgÀgÀ£ÀÄß EzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹ C°èAiÀiÁgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CªÀjUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¦.J¥sï E¢ÝÃAiÀÄ E®è E®é £ÉÆÃr vÀÄA¨Á C£ÁåAiÀÄ dgÀÄUÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ £ÉÆÃr.

ZÀAzÀ£ï- EzÀ£ÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ªÉÆÃ¸À CmÁPï «¯ÉÃeïUÉ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÆlÖ ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï PÉè K£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃªÉ ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ ©¸ÉÌÃmï ºÀtÄÚ EzÉ¯Áè G½zÉ¯Áè ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É zÉÆqÀØPÀ¼Àî PÀ¯ÁÌvÁ£À°è EªÀgÀ D¹Û ¨ÉÃPÁzÀµÀÄÖ EzÉAiÉÄÃ CªÀgÀ §AzÀÄ

M¼ÀUÉ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EzÉ PÀAqÀÄ »r¬Äj ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeïªÉÄAmï£À°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EzÁÝgÀÆ Cvï §qÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÈµÀÚªÀÄÆwð ¥ËAqÉÃµÀ£ï vÀÄA¨Á ¨É¼É¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ« zÉÆqÀØzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃ« JAzÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃgÉ zÉÃ±ÀZÀªÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á vÀÄA¨Á ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÉ¯Áè ªÀiÁå£ÉeïªÉÄAmï wAzÀÄ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÁÛ EzÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁgÀzÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤°è¹ wAUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼À PÉÆr¹ £À£Àß CPÀëgÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà EzÀÝgÉ PÀë«Ä¹ ¨ÉÃUÀ ¨ÉÃUÀ §gÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É."

11. Now let me examine the allegations in the

complaint lodged by the husband on 10.01.2018. The

respondent No.1/complainant has alleged that on

09.01.2018 at about 1.00 p.m. accused Nos.2 to 6 visited

the quarters and have started abusing the wife of

respondent No.1 in a filthy language and also tried to

assault. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the

entire complaint which reads as under:

"EªÀjAzÀ f.n. £ÀAdgÉrØ wªÀÄägÉrØAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ, ªÁ¸À ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï vÁvÀUÀÄtÂ ¥ÉÆÃ¸ïÖ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-82.

EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÀð¯ï E£Éì÷àPÀÖgï

PÀUÀÎ° ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-82.

¸Áé«Ä,

£À£Àß ¥Àwß ²æÃªÀÄw gÁzsÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß dÄ¯ÉÊ 2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉåÃ° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÉÄÃ£ÉÃeÉäAmï £ÀªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ £À£Àß ¥Àwß PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeÉäAmï ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÃ¸ÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÉÎ 19.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ EzÀÝ «zÀÄåvïZÀÑQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð GzÉÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV PÀrzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeïªÉÄAn£ÀªÀgÀÄ §¯ÁvÁÌgÀªÁV ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ M.J¸ï. £ÀA. 304/2017 gÀAzÀÄ f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ §®vÁÌgÀªÁV ºÉÆgÀºÁPÀzÀAvÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ ¤Ãr, «zÀÄåvïZÀÒQÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁPÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DeÉÕAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁ: 8.1.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeÉäAmïUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, PÀgÉAlÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ:

9.1.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1 WÀAmÉUÉ, ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ, ªÀVð¸ï, ¸ÁUÀgï gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð, ¸ÉPÉælj dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½UÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼É JA§ÄzÁV CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁvÀæªÀ®èzÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ EzÀÝ ¤Ãj£À ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀjvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ CªÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉ £À£Àß ¥Àwß gÁwæ 7 1/4 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉgÉUÉ ºÁj DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«UÉ ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À qÉÊgÉPÀÖgï ¥ÉæÃªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁUÀgï ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï Drä¤¸ÉÖçÃgï, ªÀVð¸ï CPËAmïì ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï, gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð gÉÊlgï, ¸ÉPÉælj dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï, EªÀgÀÄ PÁgÀtgÁVzÀÄÝ, F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ £À£ßÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä qÉvï£ÉÆÃlÄ §gÉ¢nÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀ£ÄÀ ß F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£ÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«£À §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À qÉÊgÉPÖÀgï, ¥ÉæÃªÀÄZÀAzÀæ, ªÁå°¸ÀÆÌ°£À Crä¤¸ÉÖçÃlgï ¸ÁUÀgï, dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï ¸ÉPÉælj, CPËAmïì ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï ªÀVð¸ï, gÉÊlgï gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð, PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ, £À£Àß ¥Àwß ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É.

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10-01-2018.

¸À»/-

(£ÀAd gÉrØ)

«.¸ÀÆ: £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä §gÉ¢nÖ¢Ý ªÀÄÆ® qÉvï £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ."

12. It is quite worth to note that the allegations in

the complaint are not found in the alleged death note of the

deceased. In the death note, there are absolutely no

allegations which would attract the ingredients of Sections

306 and 504 of IPC. The complaint lodged by respondent

No.1 is an improved version and a new narrative is set up

in the complaint, while the death note of the deceased

clearly lacks material evidence to support the allegation of

abetment to suicide against the petitioners herein. The

deceased has committed suicide on 09.01.2018. It has

come to the notice of this Court that there exists a

significant temporal gap between the alleged incident of

management disconnecting power supply in defiance of an

injunction order granted by the Civil Court and the tragic

occurrence of suicide. The temporal disparity raises

pertinent questions regarding the casual nexus between the

alleged actions of the Management and the subsequent

decision of the deceased to end her life.

13. On meticulous examination of the material on

record and thorough scrutiny, this Court is of the view that

there is absolutely no clear and cogent connection between

the purported misconduct of the accused and the

precipitating factors that led to deceased committing

suicide. In absence of any corroborative evidence and the

charge sheet materials linking the two events within a

proximate time frame casts doubt on the veracity of the

allegations levelled against the management.

14. If the death note does not indicate as to who

disconnected power supply and lacks specific details

regarding alleged actions of Principal and Director of the

educational institution, it obviously weakens the case for

criminal prosecution against the accused. Without specific

details or clear attribution of responsibility in the death

note, it becomes challenging to establish the direct link

between the actions of the Principal of the Valley School as

well as the Director and the unfortunate outcome of the

deceased's suicide.

15. The charge sheet primarily relies on the

statement of respondent No.1/complainant made under

Section 161 which do not provide substantial grounds to

proceed against the petitioners. Furthermore, it is to be

noted that the death note left by deceased does not contain

any specific allegations or mentioning any act of

harassment by the present accused. In absence of any

credible evidence linking the accused to the alleged

offences, there is no prima facie case which would compel

the present petitioners to face trial.

16. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.6273/2019 holds a

Ph.D. degree from Indian Institute of Management,

Ahmedabad. It is contended that the petitioner is a guest

lecturer at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.

Therefore, it is borne out from the records that petitioner

had no access either to deceased or respondent No.1 and

that he was appointed as the Director only in 2017. The

linking of the Director of the educational institution to the

alleged incident in absence of credible evidence and then

compelling such a reputed person to face a criminal trial

would clearly amount to abuse of process. It is also borne

out from the records that deceased during her lifetime has

raised a dispute questioning the age of superannuation. In

the present context, the pendency of industrial dispute

challenging the retirement age also leads to an inference

that respondent No.1 has used the unfortunate incident

where he lost his wife by launching criminal prosecution

against the Principal and the management.

17. As could be gathered from the death note, she

was always fighting for the right of the fellow employees

and merely because this would lead to an inference that

deceased had a grudge against the management and the

Principal and committed suicide, the same would not be a

ground to base charge in Section 306. The Apex Court in

catena of judgments has held that merely because a person

had a grudge against his superior and committed suicide on

account of that grudge, it would still not be a proper

allegation and it would fall short of proper allegation. The

Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the

accused can be prosecuted under Section 306 provided that

there is a prima facie material indicating positive action

proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the

accused which led or compelled the person to commit

suicide.

18. As per the ingredients of Section 306, 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.

Even if the allegation in the complaint, death note and

charge sheet materials are accepted in entirety, there is

absolutely no material indicating direct or indirect act of

incitement to the commission of suicide at the instance of

the present petitioners.

19. In the case of A.K.Chaudhary and Ors. vs.

State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court ruled that if an

employee commits suicide due to any abnormal reaction

caused by the complainant or higher officers conduct of

taking departmental action by using a legal remedy or

enforcing the law, it cannot be deemed an abetting suicide

under the said circumstances. In the case of Dyamanna

S/o Yamanappa vs. State of Karnataka, this Court ruled

that mere harassment by way of filing cases cannot

associate the petitioner for offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Mariano

Anto Bruno vs. Inspector of Police, held that for an

offence to be punished under Section 306 of IPC, there

must be a clear mens rea and direct act of instigation or

abetment which led the deceased to commit suicide.

20. Analyzing the factual context of the present case

through the lens of the aforementioned judgments, it

becomes evident that there is an utter dearth of material on

record, even presuming the accuracy of the complete

charge sheet, that could substantiate a conviction for

abetment. The absence of essential ingredients required to

establish the offence is glaring. While empathizing with the

grief of a husband who has lost his wife, it is imperative to

recognize that attributing blame to the institution, its

management, and its teachers for what essentially

constitutes a routine disciplinary action essential for the

operation of the institute is unwarranted. In the absence of

specific allegations and concrete evidence, ask the

petitioners-accused to undergo trial would constitute a

travesty of justice resonates with the fundamental principle

of legal fairness and due process.

21. A criminal trial, as acknowledged, is inherently

burdensome, particularly for the petitioners, who, being the

director and teachers, would undoubtedly suffer significant

prejudice if subjected to prosecution based on baseless and

irrelevant allegations.

22. Therefore, it is imperative to discern that for an

offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to

be established, both mens rea (the guilty mind) and actus

reus (the wrongful act) are indispensable. The act of

instigation or aiding in suicide must be dynamically

proximate to the death, whether directly or indirectly, and

of a nature that impels the individual to commit suicide.

Hence, in cases where these requisite elements are

manifest, the recourse to jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) would not be tenable.

Conversely, in instances where these foundational

components are absent, this Court is duty-bound to

intervene and terminate the proceedings which would on

the face of it, be abuse of the process of law and result in

miscarriage of justice.

23. In the light of discussion made supra, this Court

proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petitions are allowed;

(ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.92/2022 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru are hereby quashed insofar the present petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are concerned;