Karnataka High Court

Kavya Basavarajappa Divagihalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                           -1-
                                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025
                                                                  CRL.P No. 102876 of 2025


                              HC-KAR



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                   DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
                                                     BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                     CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102876 OF 2025
                                           (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
                              BETWEEN:

                              KAVYA BASAVARAJAPPA DIVAGIHALLI,
                              AGE. 22 YEARS, R/O. HULLATTI,
                              TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI-581 203.
                                                                               ... PETITIONER
                              (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

                              AND:

                              1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                   BY HIREKERUR POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES,
                                   R/BY THE STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                   DHARWAD BENCH, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                                   DHARWAD.

                              2.   SRI. PARAMESHAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA LAMANI,
                                   AGE. 44 YEARS, R/O. BANNIHATTI TANDA,
                                   HIREKERUR TALUK, DIST. HAVERI-581 210.
           Digitally signed
           by RAKESH S                                                      ... RESPONDENTS
RAKESH HARIHAR
S       Location: HIGH
        COURT OF
                              (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
HARIHAR KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD                SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
           BENCH



                                    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
                              CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYS THAT THE ENTIRE
                              PROCEEDINGS IN SESSION CASE NO.97/2023, ON THE FILE OF 2ND
                              ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, RANEBENNUR
                              (HIREKERUR PS CRIME NO.8/2022), FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER,
                              FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF INDIAN
                              PENAL CODE, MAY BE QUASHED BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL
                              PETITION WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
                              AND EQUITY.

                                   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER
                              IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025
                                       CRL.P No. 102876 of 2025


HC-KAR




                             ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused is before this Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in

S.C.No.97 of 2023 pending before the Court of II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ranebennur arising out of

Crime No.8 of 2022 registered by Hirekerur Police Station,

Haveri district for offence punishable under Section 306 of

IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.8 of 2022 was registered by

Hirekerur Police Station, Haveri district initially for offences

punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section

34 of IPC against the petitioner and two others based on

the first information dated 13.01.2022 received from

Parameshppa Chandrappa Lamani, father of deceased

Prasanna. After completing investigation, charge sheet has

been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

Challenging the impugned proceedings, petitioner is before

this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that

deceased was arrayed as accused in Crime No.105 of 2020,

which was registered for offences punishable under the

POCSO Act based on the first information submitted by the

mother of the petitioner herein. Petitioner is the victim in

the said case. During the pendency of the said criminal case

against the deceased, he has committed suicide leaving a

note that petitioner is the cause for his death. He submits

that even if the same is presumed to be true, the alleged

offence cannot be made out against petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer

made in the petition.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to

show that respondent was charge sheeted for offences

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354, 354A, 109 of IPC

and Sections 12 and 17 of POCSO Act in Crime No.105 of

2020 registered by Rattihalli Police Station, Hirekerur

district based on the first information which was received

from the mother of the petitioner herein. Petitioner, who

was aged about 17 years, was the alleged victim in the said

case. It appears that during the course of trial in the said

case, deceased-Prasanna had committed suicide on

13.01.2022 in his house by consuming poison. He allegedly

had posted a WhatsApp message stating that petitioner was

the cause for his death.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

PRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER1, has observed that

merely for the reason that accused had asked the deceased

to go and die, that itself is not sufficient to constitute the

necessary ingredients for the purpose of invoking the

2024 INSC 1020

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In

paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, it is observed as

follows:

"12. ... Even in we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die"

that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea." ...

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

MARIANO ANTO BRUNO AND ANOTHER Vs.

INSPECTOR OF POLICE2, in paragraph No.42 has

observed as follows:

"42. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

9. In the case of RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF

CHATTISGARH3, in paragraph Nos.20 and 21, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as follows:

"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.

21. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal10, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

(Emphasis supplied)

(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN

SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND

ANOTHER4, in paragraph No.9 has observed as follows:

"9. "Abetment" involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. Το proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

11. In the present case, even if the allegations found

against the petitioner are presumed to be true, the same is

not sufficient to invoke the alleged offence as against her

since necessary ingredients to invoke alleged offence is

absent. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion,

continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings as

against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of

law. Accordingly, the following order:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

2021 SCC OnLine SC 737

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11025

HC-KAR

ii. The entire proceedings in S.C.No.97 of 2023

pending before the Court of II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ranebennur

arising out of Crime No.8 of 2022 registered

by Hirekerur Police Station, Haveri district for

offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is

quashed against the petitioner.