Karnataka High Court
Prajwal And Anr vs The State Of Karnatka And Anr on 31 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
CRL.P No. 201240 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201240 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. PRAJWAL S/O SHANTAPPA TELI,
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE.
2. PRAVEEN S/O SHANTAPPA TELI,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC EMPLOYEE,
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE R/O. BABA NAGAR,
TQ. TIKOTA, DIST. VIAJYAPRUA-586114.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SHO, TIKOTA PS,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. SARASWATI W/O SURYAKANT HIREGAN,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BABA NAGAR, TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
CRL.P No. 201240 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.7572/2023 (ARISING OUT OF
TIKOTA PS. FIR (CRIME) NO.150/2022) AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS TO FACE TRIAL BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PS
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 143, 147, 306, 506 R/W
S. 149 IPC, PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT FLED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The petitioners being accused Nos.10 and 11 in
Criminal Case No.7572/2023, on the file of learned III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur, are seeking to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306,
506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
HC-KAR
Sri Sharanagouda V. Patil, learned counsel for respondent
No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners is liable to
be quashed invoking inherent power
under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. Respondent No.2 being the wife of the deceased
lodged the first information, alleging commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306, 506
read with Section 149 of IPC. Investigation was
undertaken and final report was came to be filed for the
aforesaid offences. It is the contention of the prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
HC-KAR
that the deceased, who is the husband respondent No.2
herein, was the owner of 9 acres 30 guntas of land in
Survey No.260/2 of Babanagar village, Vijayapur district.
He agreed to sell two acres of land in favour of CW.11 for
a total consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-. Accused No.1
being the brother of the deceased, insisted for selling the
said land in his favour and other accused have also
supported accused No.1. About three months earlier to
the incident, accused No.1 had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to
CW.11 and insisted the deceased to sell the said land in
his favour. In spite of that, deceased was not willing to
sell his land in favour of accused No.1. However, it is
alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 were insisting the
deceased to execute the sale deed in favour of accused
No.1 and threatening him with dire consequences and also
criminally intimidated to take way the life of his wife and
children. As a result of which, he committed suicide by
hanging on 28.11.2022 and therefore, respondent No.2
filed the first information.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
HC-KAR
5. The materials collected by the investigating
officer places prima facie evidence against the accused for
having committed the offence. The charge sheet
witnesses, including CW.11 specifically state in their
statements that the deceased was never willing to sell his
land in favour of accused No.1, however, accused were
insisting to sell the land, whereby the deceased was
pushed to commit suicide.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Prabhu vs. State represented by the Inspector of
Police and Another1 and drawn the attention of the
Court to paragraph Nos.16 to 20 to contend that the
present case do not fall under any of the categories of
instigation to commit suicide. The Apex Court has referred
to its various judgments and discussed about the elements
to invoke Section 306 of IPC and laid down the principles
emerging from the same.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 137
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
HC-KAR
7. The Apex Court has also observed that 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. It is also highlighted that when the accused have
played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide, that is
sufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
8. If these principles referred to the facts and
circumstances in the present case, I am satisfied that the
accused were insisting the deceased to sell his land to
accused No.1 even though he was not willing to do so.
Even when the deceased had agreed to sell the land to
CW.11 and had received advance amount of
Rs.20,00,000/-, accused No.1 had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to
CW.11 and started insisting the deceased to execute the
sale deed. They have also given life threat to the
deceased and his family members, that must have pushed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4334
HC-KAR
him to commit suicide. Therefore, there are prima facie
materials to constitute the offence.
9. Under such circumstances, I do not find any
reason to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I
answer the above point in the negative and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.
The observations made in this order is only for
disposal of the present petition and the same shall not
influence the Trial Court, while considering the materials
on record during final disposal.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
