Karnataka High Court

Manuja K D/O. Kenchappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967
                                                 CRL.P No. 101826 of 2024




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
                                        BEFORE
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101826 OF 2024
             BETWEEN:

             1.   MANUJA K. D/O. KENCHAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
                  R/O: KALKERE VILLAGE, TQ: HOSADURGA,
                  DIST. CHITRADURGA-560083.

             2.   SMT. TANUJA K. ALIAS TANU W/O. NAGARAJ,
                  AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                  R/O: HOLAKERER, DIST: CHITRADURGA-577526.

             3.   SMT. SHIVAKKA ALIAS SHIVAMMA H. W/O. SIDDAYYA,
                  AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                  R/O: SUJIKALLU VILLAGE, TQ: HOSADURGA,
                  DIST: CHITRADURGA - 577542.

             4.   KENCHAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                  R/O: KALKERE VILLAGE, TQ: HOSADURGA,
                  DIST: CHITRADURGA - 560083.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR   5.   RAMAPPA S/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                  R/O: KALKERE VILLAGE, TQ: HOSADURGA,
                  DIST: CHITRADURGA - 560083.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF     6.   AJJAIAH G. ALIAS AJAY S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA G,
KARNATAKA         AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                  R/O. BANAVIKALLU VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI,
                  DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583126.
                                                                ...PETITIONERS
             (BY SRI. AMAREGOUDA M., ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                  HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION,
                  R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                   -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967
                                        CRL.P No. 101826 of 2024




      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

2.    NAGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HYARADA VILLAGE,
      TQ. HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR - 583217.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING       TO   QUASH    THE     PROCEEDINGS       AGAINST    THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7 CRIME NO.182/2022
(HIREHADAGALI      POLICE   STATION     DATED   03.12.2022)    ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND    JMFC    COURT,   HOOVINA     HADAGLI,    FOR   THE     OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 306 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN CC NO.208/2024 THE
ORDER SHEET IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


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


CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                            ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.208/2024 pending on the file of

Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina Hadagli registered for

the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 149

of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

2. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on

03.12.2022 and the same came to be registered in

Hirehadagali P.S Crime No.182/2022 for offences

punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 149 of IPC

against the petitioners. The Police after investigation, filed

a chargesheet against the petitioners for the said offence.

Based on the chargesheet, a case came to be registered

against the petitioners in C.C.No.208/2024 for offences

under Section 306 r/w Section 149 of IPC and it is pending

on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina

Hadagali. The proceedings of the said criminal case are

sought to be quashed in the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2

remained absent and unrepresented.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

that the marriage of the deceased Basavaraj and accused

No.1 is a love marriage and both were aged 19 years as

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

on the date of their marriage. The mother of accused

No.1-Ratnamma has filed a missing complaint regarding

missing of accused No.1 on 19.10.2022. It is alleged in the

complaint that on 28.11.2022, when accused No.2 to 7

went to the house of deceased and when they were

bringing back accused No.1, at that time, accused No.1

and other accused told deceased Basavaraj to "go and die"

and thereafter he has committed suicide on 03.12.2022.

He contend that mere saying "go and die" does not attract

the offence under Section 306 of IPC. On that point, he

placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in

Crl.A.No.65/2012 and Crl.P.No.101905/2023. He contends

that even the death note does not indicate how the

petitioners are responsible for the death of deceased. On

that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra

@ Prabhat Mishra V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another1. He contends that the deceased was sensitive as

2024 AIAR (Criminal) 341

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

his wife was taken by her parents, he was depressed and

he committed suicide. The committal of suicide is not due

to the abetment. On these grounds, he prayed to quash

the proceedings registered against the petitioners.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would

contend that death note found to be in the hand writing of

the deceased, wherein, it is stated that the petitioners are

responsible for the death of the deceased. She contends

that the deceased used to talk with accused No.1 over

phone from 28.11.2022 regularly and call records reveal

the said aspect. It indicates that constantly the accused

No.1 was abating the deceased to commit suicide. The

chargesheet materials show prima facie case against the

petitioners for offence under Section 306 of IPC. With this

she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

perused the chargesheet material and other materials

placed on record.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

7. The marriage of the deceased Basavaraj with

accused No.1 was a love marriage. The accused No.1 ran

away from the house and in that regard her mother

Ratnamma has filed a complaint on 19.10.2022.

Thereafter, the deceased Basavaraj is stated to have

married accused No.1 and both were residing in his house.

On coming to know, the petitioners who are accused Nos.2

to 7 went to the house of deceased on 28.11.2022 to bring

back accused No.1. At that time, it is alleged that accused

No.1 who is wife of deceased told the deceased that she is

not ready to reside with him and asked him to "go and

die" and so also the other petitioners also stated to the

deceased to "go and die". The said incident has taken

place on 28.11.2022 and thereafter, the deceased has

committed suicide on 03.12.2022. The suicide is not

immediate to the date to the incident. The suicide is after

5 days of the said incident dated 28.11.2022. Merely

asking a person to "go and die" does not amount to

abetment to commit suicide. Considering the Apex Court

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

decision, this Court in Crl.A.65/2012 has observed as

under:

"24. The appellant-accused telling the deceased to go and die itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation. In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. 2796 it is held that the quarrel between the accused and deceased and the accused telling the deceased to go and die, that itself would not constitute ingredient of instigation. The presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. The appellant- accused merely quarrelling with the deceased-Harini, abusing her, asking her to die does not amount to abetment as there is no mens rea on the part of the appellant-accused to drive out the deceased to commit suicide. The appellant- accused should have knowledge or intention that the deceased will commit suicide. On looking to the averments of the complaint Ex.P.1 and evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 there is no allegation that appellant-accused had knowledge or

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

intention to the effect that the deceased- Harini will commit suicide.

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and others, Crl. A. No.2181/2009 has observed as under:

"16. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2009 (16) SCC 605 this Court has held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. To draw the inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State would not assist in supporting his arguments."

8. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion

without intending the consequences to actually follow,

cannot be said to be instigation.

9. Where the accused by his acts or by continued

course of conduct creates such circumstances that the

deceased was left with no other option except to commit

suicide and instigation may be inferred. In the case on

hand, there is no continued course of conduct of the

petitioners which created such circumstances that the

deceased was left with no other option except to commit

suicide.

10. A person may attempt to commit suicide due to

various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties,

disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to

abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram V/s State of

Haryana2.

11. The marriage of deceased Basavaraj with

accused No.1 was a love marriage and as accused No.1

was taken by the other accused persons to their house, it

appears that the deceased was upset and he has

committed suicide. Even, the death note stated to be in

the hand writing of the deceased, there is no specific

allegation against the petitioners as to how they are

responsible for his death. Considering all these aspects,

the proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process

of law.

12. In the result, the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

AIR 2014 SC 178

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12967

ii. The proceedings against the petitioners

in C.C.No.208/2024 pending on the file

of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina

Hadagali are quashed.