Sri Eranna Alias G Veeranna S/O ... vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3583 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Eranna Alias G Veeranna S/O ... vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                       -1-
                                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272
                                                              CRL.P No. 103835 of 2023




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                   DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                    BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103835 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

                          BETWEEN:

                          SRI. ERANNA @ G. VEERANNA
                          S/O. YADIYAPPA GANIGER,
                          AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
                          R/O. BASAVA NAGAR, KOPPAL-583231,
                          TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL.
                                                                         ...PETITIONER
                          (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE AND
                          SRI. HANUMESH M.DESAI, ADVOCATES)

                          AND:

                          1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                               BY MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION,
                               REPRESENTED BY THE
                               STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                               HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.
                          2.   SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O. VIRUPANAGOUDA GALI
                               AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR                  R/O. HOSALLI VILLAGE-583231,
Digitally signed by B K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
                               TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2025.02.07
15:50:25 +0530
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
                          SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
                          SEEKING TO, QUASH ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY PRL.
                          CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL, IN CC NO.3227/2023 THEREBY
                          TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
                          498(A), 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
                          CRIMINAL PETITION.
                              THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                          ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                          CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                     -2-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272
                                           CRL.P No. 103835 of 2023




                              ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner (accused No.4), who has been charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased daughter of the de facto complainant, accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, and accused No.4 is her brother-in-law. Initially, the accused persons allegedly treated the deceased well, but later subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and demanded that she bring money from her parental home. Despite fulfilling their demands, the accused allegedly continued to harass her. The prosecution further alleges that the accused collectively told the family of the deceased to take her back to her parental home if they did not provide additional money and if she failed to bear a child. Otherwise, they allegedly asked the deceased to "go and die." Consequently, on 02.05.2023, the deceased left her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. On 15.05.2023, the petitioner/accused No.4 allegedly refused to participate in a panchayat convened by respondent No.2, and on 16.05.2023, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused No.4 is merely the brother-in-law of the deceased and was residing separately, as evident from the address mentioned in the charge sheet. He contended that there are only general and omnibus allegations against accused No.4, without any specific overt act detailing how and in what manner he subjected the deceased to cruelty or demanded money. He further argued that the alleged utterance of the words "go and die"

does not satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 306

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272

of the IPC. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:

i) Yuvaraj v. State of Karnataka

ii) Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh

4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant argued that the statements of the charge sheet witnesses clearly establish specific overt acts against accused No.4, who allegedly subjected the deceased to both physical and mental cruelty and demanded money. Therefore, the veracity of these allegations should be examined during trial rather than at this stage. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State reiterated the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

7. The marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was solemnized on 18.11.2010. Accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and, as per the address given in the charge sheet, was residing in Basavanagar, Koppal, whereas the deceased was residing in her matrimonial home at Dadegal village in Koppal Taluk. A perusal of the charge sheet and witness statements indicates that, except for general and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed to accused No.4, detailing how and in what manner he allegedly subjected the deceased to cruelty or demanded money.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Yuvaraj (supra) at paragraph 22 has ruled that:

● "The Apex Court in S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, elucidated that in the absence of proof of mens rea coupled with an active or direct act leading to the commission of suicide, and in the absence of evidence that the alleged act was intended to push the victim to commit suicide, the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC would not arise."

9. The Apex Court in Geo Varghese placed reliance on Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, and elaborated on the essential ingredients required for an offence under Section 306 IPC, including:

• Convincing proof of incitement to suicide;

• Mere allegations of harassment being insufficient unless such acts compelled the victim to commit suicide;

• The offending actions must be proximate to the time of occurrence;

• The presence of mens rea in the accused's actions;

• A continuous course of conduct that tarnished the self- esteem and self-respect of the deceased, leading to suicide;

• Whether the victim was hypersensitive, and whether the accused's actions were of such a nature that an ordinary person would be driven to suicide;

• Each case must be examined on its own facts.

10. The Apex Court in Mahendra Awase (supra), relying on Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Another, held that the words "Go and Die", followed by the victim's suicide, were casual utterances often

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272

made in heated arguments and did not reflect the requisite mens rea. The Court emphasized that such words, in isolation, cannot be assumed to have been intended to drive the victim to commit suicide.

11. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Others, the Apex Court ruled:

"Courts should be cautious in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. Unless specific instances of their involvement are made out, mere omnibus allegations should not be the basis for prosecution."

12. The Court further observed that the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the tendency to implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes without proper scrutiny can lead to the abuse of the legal process. Mere general and omnibus allegations, without specifying the role of each accused, do not warrant prosecution.

13. In light of the above discussion, the allegations against accused No.4, even if accepted at face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Since there are only omnibus and general allegations against him, without any specific overt act, a charge sheet cannot be sustained against him. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against accused No.4 would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.3227/2023 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as they relate to petitioner/accused No.4, are hereby quashed. The trial Court shall proceed against the remaining accused without being influenced by any

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2272

observations made in this order. The observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of this petition.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

JTR Ct:VH