Karnataka High Court
Manikantha V K vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
CRL.P No. 13795 of 2024
C/W WP No. 33879 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13795 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 33879 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P No. 13795/2024
BETWEEN:
MANIKANTHA V. K
S/O. V. L. KRISHNARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1/171, 1ST BLOCK,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
SOMAWARPET TALUK,
Digitally signed KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU,
by JUANITA KARNATAKA-571 234.
THEJESWINI OCC: BUSINESSMAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAJATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF BYLAKUPPE P.S.,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
CRL.P No. 13795 of 2024
C/W WP No. 33879 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. RAVI KUMAR
S/O. NANJUNDA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
MARURU VILLAGE, HARANOORALLI HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA., HCGP FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C., PRAYING THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.187/2024 DATED 14.11.2024
REGISTERED BY THE BYLAKUPPE P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE
P/US/ 108 R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND CJM
PERIYAPATNA, MYSURU DISTRICT AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 33879/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. C. SHASHIKIRANA,
S/O LATE CHANDRU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A KUDUMANGALURU VILLAGE
NEAR DODDMMA TEMPLE,
SOMAWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-571232.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN M .T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BYLUKUPPE POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
INVESTIGATING OFFICER
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
CRL.P No. 13795 of 2024
C/W WP No. 33879 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O. NANJUNDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A MARARU VILLAGE, HARNUR HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TLAUK
MYSORE DISTSRICT-571107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528
OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED
BY THE R-1 BYLAKUPPE POLICE STATION IN CRIME
NO.0187/2024 DTD. 14.11.2024 IMPUTING THE
PETITIONER HEREIN AS ACCUSED NO. 12 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 108 R/W 3(5) OF BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(Sr.Dn) AND CJM COURT, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE
DISTRICT (VIDE ANNX-A) AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Both these petitions arise out of the impugned
proceedings in Crime No.187/2024 registered by the
respondent-Bylakuppe Police against the petitioners herein
and other accused persons for the offence punishable
under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023,
which is currently pending on the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM., Periyapatna, Mysuru District.
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for both
the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on
record.
3. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice
of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and
has not contested the petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that respondent No.2-defacto complainant is the cousin
brother of one deceased-Suresha and Smt.Pallavi is the
wife of said Suresha, pursuant to whose demise,
respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated
14.11.2024 against Sri.Manikanta-Accused No.8, who is
petitioner in Criminal Petition No.13795/2024 and
Sri.K.C.Shashikirana-Accused No.12, who is petitioner in
Writ Petition No.33879/2024 and other accused persons.
A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that
respondent No.2 specifically alleged that the deceased-
Suresha had entered into a Sale Agreement with Accused
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
No.1-Manjunatha and there was a dispute in relation to
immovable properties, during the course of which Accused
No.8 and Accused No.12, the petitioners herein have also
been made liable for the alleged offences. In this context,
it is pertinent to note that accused Nos.1 to 7 had entered
into a registered 'Joint Development Agreement' with
Accused No.1- Manikanta, the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.13795/2024 and one Sri.Keerthi-Accused No.9, in
relation to immovable property in respect of which the
deceased-Suresha is said to have entered into a Sale
Agreement with Accused No.1-Manjunatha. In addition
thereto, except general, vague, bald and omnibus
allegations made against both the petitioners, no specific
instance or allegations for commission of abetment of
suicide have been made either against petitioner/accused
No.8 or petitioner/ accused No.12 inasmuch as, no
material particulars/detail constituting the said offences
including instigation/ incitement by the petitioners/accused
persons have been made in the impugned complaint.
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
In this context, it would be necessary to reproduce the
entire complaint, which reads as under:
" ರವ ೆ,
ೕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು
ೈಲಕು ೆ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ಯಪಟ ಣ ಾಲೂ!ಕು
ಇಂದ,
ರ%ಕು&ಾ' () ನಂಜುಂಡ-ಾ./
31 , ಂ ಾಯತ 1ಾ2, 3ೕ45 6ೆಲಸ,
&ಾರೂರು ಾ8ಮ, :ಾರನೂರ;< :ೋಬ;
>ಾಪಟ ಣ ಾಲೂ!ಕು, ?. ನಂ. 9606261196
%ಷಯ: ನನA BೊಡCಪ ನ ಮಗ ಸುEೇಶ :ಾಗು ಅವರ :ೆಂಡ2 ನಲ!%ರವರು
ಆತIಹ ೆK &ಾL6ೊಳ<ಲು 6ಾರಣEಾದವರ 3ೕNೆ ಕ8ಮ 6ೈ ೊಳO<ವಂ ೆ
6ೋ ದೂರು.
Pಾನು 3ೕಲQಂಡ %Rಾಸದ ! SಾಸSಾTದುU 3ೕ4V 6ೆಲಸ
&ಾL6ೊಂLರು ೆWೕPೆ. ನನA BೊಡCಪ ನ ಮಗ ಸುEೇಶರವರು ತನA ತಂBೆ
ಜಯಣY :ಾಗು :ೆಂಡ2 ಪಲ!% :ಾಗು ಇಬZರು ಮಕQRೆ[ ಡPೆ 6ೊಪ ಾ8ಮದ !
SಾಸSಾTರು ಾWEೆ. ಸುEೇಶ ಯ\ ಎ-ೆ ೕ^ 6ೆಲಸ &ಾL6ೊಂLದುU ಈ ೆ
02 ವಷ`ಗಳ aಂBೆ ಕುbಾಲನಗರ ಗುಮIನ6ೊಳ< ಬ; ಮಂಜುPಾc :ಾಗು
ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ NಾKಂd ಬ; ಸSೇ` ನಂ.97/21 ರ ! 02 ಎಕEೆ 60
-ೆಂ^ 1ಾಗವನುA -ೈ^ &ಾಡಲು NಾKಂd eೆವಲf &ಾLಸುವgBಾT
ಆT83ಂ^ &ಾL6ೊಂಡು 3ೕಲQಂಡ ಮಂಜುPಾc :ಾಗು ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬ
ದವ ೆ 20,00,000/- (ಇಪ ತುW ಲ ರೂSಾhಗಳO) ರೂ ಗಳನೂA
ೕLರು ಾWEೆ. ನಂತರ ಸದ 1ಾಗದ ! ಸುEೇಶ ರವರು 6ೆಲಸ ಆರಂi4
ಸು&ಾರು ಒಂದು 6ೋk ರೂ ಾhಗಳನುA ಖಚು` &ಾL ದುರ4W :ಾಗು ಭೂ
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
ಪ ವತ`Pೆ :ಾಗು ಾ!) ಅಪoವ\ &ಾL4 NಾKಂd eೆವಲ ೆpಂ^ 6ೆಲಸ
&ಾಡು2Wರು ಾWEೆ.
aೕ ೇರುSಾ ೆ 3ೕಲQಂಡ ಕುbಾಲನಗರದ ಗುಟ ನ6ೊಳ<
Sಾ4ಗRಾದ ಮಂಜುPಾc :ಾಗು ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬಸIEಾದ ಹ ೕಶ,
-ೌrಾಗK ಾಯ28 bೆ8ೕಯ, ಆsತK, ಅನುtಾ ರವರುಗಳO ಸದ 1ಾಗವನುA
ಸುEೇಶನ ಗಮನ6ೆQ ೆEೆದ ಈಗ, ಎರಡು 2ಂಗಳ aಂBೆ ಕುbಾಲನಗರದ
ಮuಕಂಠ :ಾಗು ಮರL>ಾರು ಾ8ಮದ wೕ2`ರವ ೆ NಾKಂd
ದವNೋಷQಂxೆ ಅT83ಂ^ &ಾL6ೊk ದುU ಸದ ಅT83ಂ^
-ಾyBಾರ ೆ ಸುಂದ' ನಗರದ ಅರುz ಕು&ಾ' :ಾಗು ಜಯEಾಮರವರು
ಸa :ಾwರು ಾWEೆ. ನನA BೊಡCಪ ನ ಮಗ ಸುEೇಶನು ನನ ೆ ಅಣYPಾಗ ೇwದುU
Pಾನು ಕೂಡ ಕಲQದ %{ಾರಗಳ ! ಸುEೇಶನ 1ೊ ೆ ಇದುU ಓeಾL6ೊಂಡು
ಸುEೇಶ ೆ ಸ:ಾಯ &ಾಡು2Wರು ೆWೕPೆ NಾKಂd ದವNೋಪ ೇEೆಯವ ೆ
ಅT83ಂ^ ಆTರುವ %{ಾರ 2;ದು ನನA ಅಣY ಸುEೇಶನು ಈಗ, 6ೆಲವg
sನಗಳ aಂBೆ ನನAನು :ಾಗು ಸುEೇಶನ -ೆAೕaತEಾದ ಸು}ೇ~, ಮನು
ನ%ೕನರುಗRೆ[ ಡPೆ ಮಂಜುPಾಥ ರವರ ಮPೆಯ ಹ2Wರ 6ೇಳಲು :ೋBಾಗ
3ೕಲQಂಡ ಮಂಜುPಾಥ :ಾಗು ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ PಾವgಗಳO
ೇEೆಯವ ೆ 6ೊk BೆUೕPೆ, ನ ೆ ಡವಲ ೆ ಂ^ &ಾಡಲು 6ೊಡುವgsಲ!
ಎಂದು :ೇ;ರು ಾWEೆ. ಈ %{ಾರSಾT ನನA ಅಣY ಸುEೇಶನು ಈ ಬ ೆ€ Pಾನು
6ಾನೂನು ೕ2 ಮುಂದುವEೆಯು ೆWೕPೆ ಎಂದು :ೇ;ದುU ಅದ6ೆQ 3ೕಲQಂಡ
ಮಂಜುPಾಥ :ಾಗು ಅವರ &ಾನವರು ೕನು 6ೋ^` ಕ{ೇ ಅಂತ
:ೋದEೆ ನAನು :ಾಗು ನA ಹಂಡ2 ಮಕQಳನುA 6ೊNೆ &ಾಡು ೆWೕPೆ. ಇನುA
ಮುಂBೆ ನಮI ತಂxೆ ೆ ಬರ ೇಡ ಎಂದು ೆದ 6ೆ :ಾwರು ಾWEೆ. ಆ
ಸಮಯದ ! PಾವgಗಳO 6ೋ^` ಇBೆ 6ೇ :ಾ6ೋಣ ಾ ಎಂದು
ಸುEೇಶನನುA ಸ&ಾ•ಾನ &ಾL ಕEೆದು6ೊಂಡು ಬಂsರು ೆWೕPೆ. ನಂತರದ !
ಅT83ಂ^ &ಾL46ೊಂLದU ಮuಕಂಠ :ಾಗು wೕ2`ರವರು ಮತುW
ಅT8ೕ3ಂk ೆ ಸa :ಾwದU ಅರುz ಕು&ಾ' :ಾಗು ಜಯEಾ‚ ರವರ ಬ;
ೆರ; ಸದ 1ಾಗದ %{ಾರSಾT ಚ{ೆ` &ಾL Sಾಪಸು ನಮ ೆ 6ೊಟು
ಬರುವಂ ೆ ಸುEೇಶನು 6ೇ;6ೊಂeಾಗ 3ೕಲQಂಡವರು :ಾಗು ಮuಕಂಠನ
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
-ೆAೕaತ ಶƒwರz ರವರು ಇನುA ಮುಂBೆ ಈ 1ಾಗದ %{ಾರSಾT ಬರ ೇಡ.
ಬಂದEೆ ನAನು :ಾಗು ನA ಮI ಮPೆಯವ ೆ ಒಂದು ಗ2 6ಾuಸು ೆWೕSೆ
ಎಂದು ೆದ 6ೆ :ಾwರು ಾWEೆ. ಇBೇ %{ಾರSಾT ಸುEೇಶನು &ಾನ4ಕSಾT
Pೊಂದು6ೊಂLದುU, ಾ8ಣಭಯsಂದ :ೆದ ಆತIಹ ೆK &ಾL6ೊಳO<ವgBಾT
2;4ದುU ಆಗ PಾವgಗಳO ಸ&ಾ•ಾನ &ಾLBೆವg. ನಂತರ PೆA sನ
sPಾಂಕ 13.11.2024 ರಂದು ಸುEೇಶನನುA ಹುಡುw6ೊಂಡು :ೊರkದುU
ಮರL>ಾರು ಕeೆ ೆ :ೋTರುವgBಾT 6ೊಪ ಾ8ಮದ 6ೆಲವರು 2;4ದ
3ೕEೆ ೆ ಮರL>ಾರು ಾ8ಮ6ೆQ ಸಂ1ೆ 07:30 ಗಂxೆ ಸಮಯ6ೆQ ೆರ;ದುU
ಅ ! ಸುEೇಶನು :ೊಸ NಾKಂd ಡವಲಂxೆ &ಾತುಕ ೆ ಮದು6ೊಂLದU
ಕೃಷYಮೂ2` ಎಂಬುದವರ ಜ/ೕ ನ bೆಡA ! ಸುEೇಶ :ಾಗು ಅವರ ಪ2A
ಪಲ!%ರವರು ಹಗ€sಂದ ಕು2W ೆ ೆ Pೇಣು :ಾw6ೊಂLರು ಾWEೆ. ತ ಣ
PಾವgಗಳO ಅವರನುA 6ೆಳ ೆ ಇ;4 PೋಡNಾT ಮೃತಪk ರು ಾWEೆ. ನಂತರ
ಸುEೇಶ :ಾಗು ಪಲ!%ರವರ ಶವಗಳನುA ಆxೋ...ಂದರ ! ಕುbಾಲನಗರ
ಆಸ ೆ8 ೆ ೆ ೆದು6ೊಂಡು :ೋTರು ೆWೕSೆ. ಆದU ಂದ ನನA ಅಣY ಸುEೇಶ
:ಾಗು ಪಲ!%ರವರ ಆತIಹ ೆK &ಾL6ೊಳ<ಲು ೆ8ೕEೇ 4ದ 3ೕಲIಡAವರ
3ೕNೆ 6ಾನೂನು ೕ2 ಕ&ಾ` ಜರುTಸ ೇ6ೆಂದು ತಮI 6ೋ 6ೆ.
sPಾಂಕ : 14.11.2024
Sd/-
ತಮI %bಾ.4
sPಾಂಕ 14.11.2024 ರಂದು >ಾ`ದುBಾರರು ೆ; ೆ€ 2:30 ಗಂxೆ ೆ
ತನA -ೆAೕaತ B.C ನಟEಾ† ರವEೊಂs ೆ ಾ ೆ ೆ :ಾಜEಾT ೕLದ
Cr.No. 187/2024 u/S 108, 3(5) of B.N.S ಾ ೆಯ !
ಪ8ಕರಣ Bಾಖ 4 6ೊಂLರು ೆWೕPೆ."
5. Bare perusal of the aforesaid complaint would
indicate that the same does not disclose the commission of
offence of abetment of suicide by the petitioner/accused
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
No.8 and petitioner/accused No.12, who are merely said to
have asked the deceased to sort out the issue and there is
no threat, incitement or instigation amounting to abetment
alleged to have been made by the petitioners to the
deceased and his wife so as to drive them to commit
suicide as alleged by respondent No.2-complainant.
6. The scope and ambit of offence punishable for
abetment of suicide has come before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court on numerous occasions including the
following cases:
(1) Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of
Karnataka through SHO Kataki Police,
2024 SCC Online SC 3541,
(2) Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others, in Civil
Appeal No.654/2017, dated 03.10.2024;
(3) V.S.Suresh and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Another in
W.P.No.5821/2024 dated 03.09.2024
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
7. In Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"PANKAJ MITHAL, J. :- The accused-
appellant was charged under Sections 417, 376
and 306 of the Penal Code, 18601. The trial
court acquitted him of all the above offences,
but on appeal by the State of Karnataka to the
High Court, he was convicted for the offences
under Sections 417 and 306 IPC. However, the
acquittal under Section 376 IPC was
maintained. He was awarded sentence of 1
year under Section 417 IPC with a fine of Rs.
5,000/-; and with a sentence of 4 years for the
offence under Section 306 IPC with a fine of
Rs. 20,000/-. Basically, the conviction of the
accused-appellant is for the offences of
cheating and for abetment of suicide only.
2. A girl named Suvarna, aged about 21
years, was in love with the accused-appellant
for the past 8 years i.e. she was in love with
him since the age of 13 years. It is alleged that
the accused-appellant had promised to marry
her but when he refused, she consumed poison
and committed suicide.
3. It is alleged that the accused-appellant,
Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi, had promised to
marry the deceased before the jamaat
(panchayath) but 4 months prior to the
incident, he had left the village and started
living at Kakati, Karnataka. The deceased came
to Kakati in the evening of 18.08.2007 and
when the accused-appellant clearly refused to
marry her, she left. The deceased spent the
whole night at the bus stand at Kakati and in
the morning consumed poison which she had
brought with her from Gadhinglaj. One
Badshaha (PW-5), relative of the accused-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
appellant, found her lying at the bus stand and
took her to hospital at about 08 : 50 am on
19.08.2007. PSI Kakati (PW-15) recorded the
statement of the deceased between 3 pm and
4 pm & thereafter sent a requisition to the
Executive Magistrate to record the deceased's
dying declaration. The dying declaration of the
deceased was recorded by the Taluka
Executive Magistrate, Belgaum (PW-11) in the
presence of the doctor (PW-12) between 04.50
pm and 05.20 pm. Thereafter, she died in the
hospital on the same day itself i.e. on
19.08.2007.
4. The mother of the deceased (PW-1)
lodged an FIR on 20.08.2007 under Section
306 read with Section 34 IPC at the Police
Station, Kakati, Circle Belgaum Rural District,
Karnataka against the accused-appellant and
his uncle, alleging that the accused-appellant
had deceived her daughter by promising to
marry her and then refusing it, which led to the
commission of suicide by her in frustration.
5. After investigation, a chargesheet was
drawn and submitted charging the accused-
appellant under Sections 417, 376 and 306
IPC. The accused-appellant was arrested on
20.08.2007 and later released on bail during
the trial. The IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Belgaum, vide judgment and order dated
13.04.2010 acquitted the accused-appellant of
all the charges as there was no allegation in
the dying declaration that the accused-
appellant ever had any sexual intercourse with
the deceased on the pretext of promise to
marry her or ever had any physical relationship
with her. Her only allegation was that she
consumed poison as he refused to marry her.
There was no allegation that the accused-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
appellant instigated her to consume poison or
to commit suicide.
6. Moreover, the statement of mother of
the deceased (PW-1) revealed that it was only
the deceased who was in love with the
accused-appellant and not the other way
around. The deceased had impressed upon her
mother to convince the accused-appellant to
marry her as she was in love with him. The
mother of the deceased (PW-1) nowhere stated
that the accused-appellant was in love with her
daughter. No other evidence was there to
prove that any physical relationship was
established by the accused-appellant with the
deceased except that he had agreed to marry
her before the panchayath, which was not
proved.
7. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of
the case coupled with the fact that there was
no evidence to suggest that the accused-
appellant had instigated or aided the deceased
in consuming poison and committing suicide,
the trial court acquitted the accused-appellant.
8. On appeal by the State of Karnataka,
the High Court convicted the accused-appellant
under Sections 417 and 306 IPC. Thus, the
present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the parties were
heard at length and ease.
10. The submission of learned counsel for
the accused-appellant is that there is no iota of
evidence on record to prove abetment of
suicide or cheating on part of the accused-
appellant and that the High Court is not
justified in reversing the decision of acquittal
passed by the trial court.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
11. The FIR alleges that the daughter of
the complainant, upon completion of BA, took
admission for MA at Gadhinglaj. She i.e. the
mother of the deceased came to know that her
daughter was in love with a Muslim boy named
Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi of the village i.e.
the accused-appellant. She complained about
their affair with the reputed people of the
Muslim community of the village and a meeting
of the Muslim community was called wherein
the accused-appellant and her deceased
daughter were present and both of them
agreed to marry. The accused-appellant
cheated her daughter by giving false assurance
of marriage and by entering into physical
relationship with her, then refusing to marry,
which compelled her to consume poison,
leading to her death.
12. The deceased left behind two dying
declarations which are on record. Exh.P17 is
the dying declaration recorded by PSI, Kakati
(PW-15) whereas Exh.P10 is another dying
declaration recorded later by the Taluka
Executive Magistrate, Belgaum (PW-11) in the
presence of the doctor (PW-12) in the hospital
between 04 : 50 pm to 05 : 20 pm on
19.08.2007.
13. The dying declaration of the deceased
duly recorded by PSI, Kakati states that the
deceased was a 21 year old girl studying in MA
1st year. She was in love with the accused-
appellant who had left the village 4 months
back and had started residing at Kakati,
Belgaum. Allegedly about 8 days before the
incident, he had called on her phone and asked
her to come to Kakati. She reached Kakati in
the evening of 18.08.2007 and met him at
Avanti Hotel. She asked him to marry her but
he refused to marry and left. She, thereafter,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
went to the bus stop and consumed poison
which she had brought with her from
Gadhinglaj.
14. The dying declaration recorded later
by Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW-11),
Belgaum, on 19.08.2007 states that she was
aged about 21 years and was residing with her
mother, elder sister and younger brother and
was studying in MA 1st year. She was having an
affair with the accused-appellant since last 8
years. Their affair came to the knowledge of
the elder persons of both the families and all of
them decided to perform the marriage. The
accused-appellant agreed to marry her in front
of the elders of the village. He left the village
about 4 months ago and when she made
inquiries about him, she came to know that he
was residing at Kakati. She went to Kakati and
searched him and made a phone call. Then she
met him at Avanti Hotel and asked him to
marry her but he refused. Thereafter, she
consumed poison which she had brought in a
bottle from Gadhinglaj. She was shifted to the
hospital for treatment by a relative of the
accused-appellant named Badshaha Nazir
Pathan (PW-5) of Kakati.
15. The aforesaid statement was made in
Marathi and a translated copy was put on
record. The doctor had certified that the
patient was fully conscious and fit to give
statement. The Executive Magistrate, Belgaum,
has recorded that the deceased had a
frustrated mentality.
16. The dying declaration of the deceased
reveals that there is no allegation of any
physical relationship between the accused-
appellant and the deceased or that the
accused-appellant had ever entered into any
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
physical relationship or had sexual intercourse
with the deceased under the pretext of
marriage. The dying declaration indicates that
it was the deceased who was in love with the
accused-appellant and wanted to marry him.
When the accused-appellant had left the
village, it was the deceased who made search
about him and came to know that he was
residing in Kakati. She herself traced him out
at Kakati and went after him. She called him
and when they met, he refused to marry her
and thus, as her sentiments were hurt, she
consumed poison leading to her death.
17. There is no allegation by her that the
accused-appellant had instigated her to
consume poison or to commit suicide. No other
evidence in this regard has been adduced.
Even the mother of the deceased (PW-1) in her
statement revealed that it was the deceased
who was in love with the accused-appellant
and that she wanted her mother to convince
him to marry her. The said witness though may
have stated that the deceased entered into
physical relationship with her daughter but the
same otherwise does not stand proved or
corroborated, not even by the dying
declarations. As regards the promise to marry
alleged to have been made by the accused-
appellant, it is said that the same was made
before the village elders in context with which
Najaruddin Mohammad Malik (PW-3) and
Kashim Babalal Sankeshwar (PW-4) were
examined. Both these witnesses have stated
that they had provided a written document
regarding the panchayath proceedings to the
deceased and her mother but no such
document was produced by PW-1 to prove that
the accused-appellant had actually ever
promised or agreed to marry her daughter.
There is allegation but no evidence to prove
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
that the accused-appellant was also in love
with the deceased or that he was in touch with
her in any manner. The allegation that both of
them were talking to each other on phone is
without any substance as no evidence was
produced in the form of call records of either of
them to establish that the accused-appellant
used to call the deceased and talk to her and to
establish that he was also in love with her.
There is no evidence to even establish that the
accused-appellant entered into any physical
relationship with the deceased on the pretext
of marrying her. So, the evidence fails to prove
any physical relationship between the two,
promise to marry on the part of the accused-
appellant and that he was instrumental in
instigating the deceased to consume poison or
to commit suicide.
18. Section 306 IPC defines abetment of
suicide which reads as under:
"306. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
19. It provides for the punishment for
abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore,
'abetment' of suicide is an essential element for
punishing a person for an offence under
Section 306 IPC.
20. Abetment has been defined under
Section 107 IPC and it reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person
abets the doing of a thing, who-
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
First.- Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.- Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid
provision lays down that a person, who abets
the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates
any person to do that thing. Therefore,
'instigation' to do a particular thing is
necessary for charging a person with
abetment.
22. 'Instigation' is to provoke, incite or
encourage a person to do an act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that
abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a particular thing and
without the positive act on part of the accused
there would be no instigation. It has also been
observed that to convict a person for abetment
of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to
be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused
to abet such a crime and it requires an active
act or a direct act leading to the commission of
suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh2, a three Judges Bench of this
Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife,
where the husband in anger uttered-'You are
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
free to do whatever you wish and go wherever
you like'. Thereafter, the wife committed
suicide. The Court, after examining the
meaning of instigation which is an essential
element for abetment of suicide, observed that
such words, uttered out of emotion, do not
constitute mens rea and do not amount to
intentionally inciting the other party to actually
do an act which may result in the commission
of self-killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits
suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty
meted out to her, the Courts have always held
that discord and differences in domestic life are
quite common in society and that the
commission of such an offence largely depends
upon the mental state of the victim. Surely,
until and unless some guilty intention on the
part of the accused is established, it is
ordinarily not possible to convict him for an
offence under Section 306 IPC.
26. The salient features constituting an
offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated
by this Court in M. Mohan v. State represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3 and it
was observed as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009)
16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]
had an occasion to deal with this aspect
of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word
"instigation" and "goading". The Court
opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person's
suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of
self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
is impossible to lay down any straitjacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its
own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court are clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has
to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the disease to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must
have been intended to push the disease
in two such a position that he/she
committed suicide."
27. The same aspects have been reiterated
by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v.
State of West Bengal and have been again
repeated in Prabhu v. State represented by
Inspector of Police.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further
observed that broken relationships and heart
breaks are part of everyday life and that
breaking-up of the relationship would not
constitute any instigation or abetment of
suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute
'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused
had by his acts and omissions or by continued
course of conduct created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by
the prosecution to prove that the accused-
appellant has in any way instigated or
provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The
accused-appellant on asking of the deceased
had simply refused to marry her which is not a
positive act on his part with any intention to
abet the crime of suicide.
30. If we examine the instant case on the
touch stone of the above principles of law, we
find that the accused-appellant had simply
refused to marry the deceased and thus, even
assuming there was love between the parties,
it is only a case of broken relationship which by
itself would not amount to abetment to suicide.
The accused-appellant had not provoked the
deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather
the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle
from her village while going to Kakati,
Karnataka with a predetermined mind to
positively get an affirmation from the accused-
appellant to marry her, failing which she would
commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation
simply because the accused-appellant refused
to marry her, would not be a case of
instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased
to commit suicide.
31. Even assuming, though there is no
evidence that the accused-appellant promised
to marry the deceased, that there was such a
promise, it is again a simple case of a broken
relationship for which there is a different cause
of action, but not prosecution or conviction for
an offence under Section 306, specially in the
facts and circumstances of the case where no
guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the
accused-appellant had been established.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
32. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion that the
judgment and order of the High Court dated
15.12.2011 cannot be sustained in law and is
hereby set aside and the accused-appellant
stands acquitted as was done by the trial court.
33. The appeal is allowed with no order as
to cost."
8. In Nipun Aneja and Others (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:
"1 This appeal is at the instance of three accused
sought to be prosecuted in connection with Criminal
Case No 11428 of 2007 for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'the IPC') and is directed against the order
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench dated 10 March 2017 by which the
High Court rejected the application filed by the
appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings.
2 The case of the prosecution may be summarized
as under:
3 The deceased, namely, Rajeev Jain was an
employee of Hindustan Lever Limited. He was
serving with the company past twenty-three years.
On 03.11.2006, he committed suicide in his hotel
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
room in Lucknow. The brother of the deceased,
namely, Rajnish Jain lodged a First Information
Report on 4 November 2006 in connection with the
suicide committed by his brother. The First
Information Report reads thus:
"Late Shri Rajeev Jain who was working in
Hindustan Lever Limited from past 23 years was
having good work capacity therefore there was
no spot on his career in any manner. He was
very disciplined and dutiful person. Rajeev Jain
who was my brother, his dead body was found
in Hotel Ambar situated in Lucknow on
03.11.2006. After this sad incident applicant
came to Lucknow and Bhabhi of applicant
namely Smt. Sunita Devi Jain wife of Late Shri
Rajeev Jain resident of B - 134 Bari Badi Gayabi
Mu. Mehmurganj police Station Dhelupura
District Varanasi also came. I want to present
following facts before you on the basis of
conversation held between me and my bhabhi
and in between me and my elder brother from
time to time. My elder brother Rajiv Jain was
honest, disciplined employee of Hindustan Lever
Limited and his retirement was fixed at the age
of 60 Years. But from past one year he remained
tensed because of the wrong behavior of some
of his officers. With great efforts and on asking
again and again he told that company is offering
VRS Scheme and he is being compelled to
accept the same. He also stated that it is being
called VRS Scheme but it is made applicable as
CRS (Compulsory Retirement Scheme). These
officers would have certainly put pressure on
him, its effect could be felt in the house also. In
the month of September 2006 he was seen
tensed and on asking told that company made
VRS Scheme applicable and it will be continued
till 30.09.06, but he is being compelled to accept
the same forcefully and is being harassed. In
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
this work the main role was of Shri Venkatesh
RMM HLL Northern India, Shri Kalol Chakraborty
RPM HLL Northern India, Shri Rupendra Yadav,
RSM Northern India, Shri Nipun Aneja ASM
Purvanchal, ZI Alvi, AE and Manish Sharma, AE
and others. Because it is was introduced as a
VRS scheme therefore my brother Late Rajiv
Jain and his many other colleagues did not
accept the same. After the month of September
in the month of October 2006 the cruelty of
some of the officers increased to more extent
and when objected to, these persons threatened
even through antisocial elements whereas my
brother Late Rajiv Jain was very peaceful nature.
Before coming to the programme organized by
the company in Lucknow (Hotel Amber and Hotel
Deep Palace) on 2nd and 3rd November 2006 he
said that he will keep his defense strongly and
will satisfy the officers and will take out
permanent solution. Sir, with the aforesaid basis
he came to Lucknow from Varanasi on 01.11.06
and stayed in Hotel Amber along with his
colleagues. On 02.11.06 he talked at home
through phone. On 03.11.06 my brother was
again harassed unnecessarily. After that those
officers handed over some letter to him. My
brother Late Rajiv Jain told about his difficulty at
home also on telephone on 03.11.06. Then they
came to their hotel from meeting. Afterwards his
dead body is found in the room. Sir, I have the
complete belief that for instigating my brother
Shri Rajiv Jain to take such a weak step
following officer and other officers of the
company are mainly responsible."
1. Shri Venki Vekatesh R.M. North India, H.L.L.
2. Shri Kaloi Chakraborty R.P.M. North India, H.L.L.
3. Shri Rupendra Yadav, R.S.M. North India H.L.L.
4. Shri Z.I. Alwi, A.E. H.L.L.
5. Shri Meenish Sharma, A.E. H.L.L.
6. Shri Nipun Aneja, A.S.M. Eastern U.P. H.L.L.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
This fact is also important because even after
occurrence of such a painful incident no officer
of company till date has come in front in any
manner Sir, it is requested that on writing the
report kindly initiate the necessary
proceedings. My bhabhi and me unlucky
brother who are in pain will be very grateful to
you."
4 Thus, it appears on plain reading of the First
Information Report that the appellants before us in
their capacity as senior officers of the company had
convened a meeting on 3 November 2006 with the
employees of the company at Hotel Amber in
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The deceased alongwith his
colleagues was present in the meeting. The
gravamen of the charge is that the company wanted
around fifty to sixty office employees to opt for
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). As all those
employees were not ready to opt for the VRS
scheme, they were being harassed in some manner
or the other. It is further alleged that in the course of
the meeting the deceased was humiliated by the
appellants & he felt very bad about it.
5 In the course of investigation, the police recorded
statements of some of the colleagues of the
deceased who were also present in the meeting. We
may look into just two statements in this regard. The
first statement is of Sudhir Kumar Ojha. In his police
statement, he has stated the following:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
"Shri Sudhir Kumar Ojha son of Late Shri
Shyam Kishore Ojha resident of Om Niwas Civil
Lines P.S. Kotwali District Sultanpur on oath
stated that I and Shri Rajeev are working in
Hindustan Lever Limited Company at the post
of salesman. I was appointed as salesman and
Shri Rajiv Jain was posted in Varanasi. On
01.11.06 we came in Ambar Hotel and both of
us stayed in no. 244. On 03.11.06 we reached
at Deep Palace Hotel at around 09 : 30 AM for
the purpose of participating in meeting. First of
all we were preferred by Nipun Aneja, ZILV,
Vijay Dev Sharma, Manish Sharma, M.A. Khan
and others in the meeting. In the meeting of
last month for all the salesman the voluntary
retirement scheme of Districts of East Uttar
Pradesh for all the salesman is brought in front
and the same is done through the Unnav
company which is not accepted by most of the
persons. In the meeting which took place now
also most of the salesman were made as
responsible for lower category from past on
making changes in profile which is beyond our
status. Shri Rajiv Jain started crying on being
tensed in the meeting. In this manner the
company started the procedure of changing the
VRS to CRS. Meeting came to an end at around
5 : 30 PM. I went on the residence of my sister
Sudha. From there at 8 PM returned back in
hotel and came in room no. 123 and along with
my colleague Keshav Tiwari son of Shri Rakesh
Tiwari along with Pandey General Store
Kachehri Chowk Bier reached in room no. 244.
Room was closed from inside. Efforts are made
to get it open and called up through telephone.
But no reply was there then we contacted the
Manager of the hotel who on making efforts at
his own level Subhash Nath Employee was sent
inside from the bathroom of the room and got
the door opened and saw that Shri Rajiv Jain
tied the knot of bed sheet and was hanging
from fan. He was checked and found that he is
dead. Information about all this is given during
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
the course of meeting to M. Venkatesh on
03.11.06. Letter which was given to Rajiv Jain
in the meeting is found in his room. I am giving
the same to you."
6 The second statement is one of Shri Jayant Kumar
Ghatak. His police statement reads thus:
"Jayant Kumar Ghatak son of Late Vijay Kumar
Ghatak resident of 124 Sohaptia Bagh police
station Daraganj Allahabad on oath stated that
on 03.07.06 the panchayatnama was filled of
Rajiv Jain who committed suicide in Amber
Hotel and the dead body was sent on duly
stamping and sealing to the constables for the
purpose of post-mortem. Signatures were
taken.
Statement of witness-
Jayant Kumar Ghatak son of Late Shri Vijay
Kumar Ghatak resident of 184 Sohaptia Kaam
Allahabad police station George Town District
Allahabad on oath stated with regard to his
colleague Late Rajiv Jain with regard to the
incident committed along with him then he
stated on oath during the course of enquiry
that each month meeting of one day - one day
is done with regard to sales by officers which
took place one day in each month but this
month two days the meeting was called. On
first day meeting took place in Amber Hotel, in
which the talks were held by the officers who
came in the meeting with regard to sales but
on 03.11.06 the meeting which was held in
Deep Palace, that was called for harassing the
employees salesman who are not taking VRS
and for the purpose of doing their demotion. In
the meeting area sales manager M. Nipun
Aneja, ZILV, Manish Sharma, M.H. Khan and
Vijay Dev came in the meeting. In the meeting
the meeting was called of the person not taking
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
the VRS and of sales man. In the meeting 1.
R.R. Kapoor, 2. Keshav Tiwari 3. R.N. Prasad,
4. R.N. Shukl, 5. Sudhir Ojha, 5. B.N. Gupta 9.
Hari Shyam Mishra 2. Rajiv Jain and I was in
the staff meeting. In the meeting all the sales
men were called by number who have not
taken the VRS and while stating the bad about
them M. Nipun Aneja, Manish Sharma and ZILV
were given one transfer letter for the post of
merchandising which was post lower from
salesman and those employees who were not
accepting the transfer letter, their life will be
ruined and will be dispelled from service. Vijay
Dev Nani and M.A. Khan who were present in
the meeting did not said bad to anyone and nor
provide mental harassment. They were only
present. Scheme of VRS was launched by Kalol
Chakravarty and Rupendra Yadav who came
one year back for the purpose of launching the
same who harassed us a lot, that the one who
will not take the VRS will be dispelled. M. Banki
Venkatesh from whose signature transfer was
done in merchandising from salesman. They
harassed us mentally earlier for the purpose of
taking of VRS. On not taking the VRS on
forcefully harassing mentally on doing their
signature done our transfer in merchandising
from sales man. The letter was given by M.
Nipun Aneja, Manish Sharma and ZILV. On
calling Rajiv Jain in last in meeting gave the
transfer letter of merchandising from salesman
and stated bad because of which on being
aggrieved Rajiv Jain started crying in meeting
all only. We were very tensed. After ending of
the meeting all the persons came to Amber
Hotel, but in his room ...... Sudhir Ojha on going
at the place of his sister Sudha came alone in
rickshaw and on going in his room directly
strangulated himself on putting the loop with
fan and committed suicide on closing the door.
We while leaving the hotel knocked the door
then the room was closed from inside then
though he might be getting fresh alone
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
therefore we returned back to Allahabad. On
way near Raibarelly received the information on
phone then returned back to hotel then on
sending inside from window the son of Subhash
Chandra Verma the room was got opened,
there dead body was hanging with fan and they
died. And after panchayatnama the dead body
was sent for the purpose of proceedings for the
purpose of postmortem. Despite of information
to the officers of department no one came to
Hotel Amber. Officers of our department
harassed Rajiv Jain and us that at last Rajiv
Jain committed suicide. This is my statement
which is recorded in the court."
7 Thus, the two police statements referred to above
if read closely reveals that the three appellants in
their capacity as high-ranking officers of Hindustan
Lever Ltd. had convened a meeting in Hotel Amber
with the employees of the company serving as
salesmen. This meeting was convened to discuss
about the sales of the company. On the next day,
i.e., 03.11.2006, the meeting as alleged was
convened only to harass those salesmen who were
not ready to opt for VRS. In this meeting as alleged
some of the salesmen including the deceased were
issued letter to undertake the work of
merchandising. This was not liked by all the
employees. They felt that after putting in 23 years of
service as salesmen, they could not have been asked
to undertake the work of merchandising. Again, as
alleged, this was done by way of punishment for
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
refusing to voluntarily retire. It is not the case that
just one person, i.e., the deceased was targeted &
humiliated.
8 On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the
police thought fit to file charge-sheet. The filing of
the charge-sheet ultimately culminated in the
criminal proceedings.
9 As the High Court declined to quash the
proceedings, the appellants are here before this
Court.
10 Before we proceed to say anything on the merits
of the case, we should look into the line of reasoning
assigned by the High Court in its impugned order
while rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the
criminal proceedings. The High Court in its impugned
order in paragraphs 31, 39, 40 and 46 respectively
has observed thus:
"31. In the present case, the employees Sudhir
Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak have
specifically stated the humiliation which was
faced by the deceased due to the action of Z.I.
Alvi, Nipun Aneja and Manish Kumar Sharma
coupled with humiliation which was
continuously being faced by the deceased due
to the behavior of Rupendra Yadav and Kallol
Chakaraborty. There is direct nexus between
the deliberations that took place in the meeting
and the suicide committed by the deceased just
thereafter.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
xxx xxx xxx
39. Coming to the factual matrix of the present
case, the statement of Sunita Jain wife of the
deceased is relevant & attains importance with
reference to the statements of Sudhir Kumar
Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak. Sudhir Kumar
Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak have
specifically stated that the deceased was
humiliated in the meeting. He was given a
letter to do the job on a lower cadre post in
merchandising. Deceased was working in the
establishment for the last about 23 years.
Without any inquiry or leveling any charge
against him, he was asked to work on a lower
post, although it is true that it is a matter
between the employer and employee, which is
contractual obligation.
40. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that the contractual relationship
between the employer and employee in the
company was such that the employer could
have asked the employees to work on any post.
It is further contended that in the list of
employees who had opted the VRS scheme,
name of the deceased was not there. Deceased
had not opted for voluntary retirement. This
aspect attains importance.
xxx xxx xxx
46. In the present case, the deceased was so
much humiliated publicly that, just after the
meeting, he went to his room and committed
suicide. There is a direct link between the
meeting and the commission of suicide.
Deceased was being continuously humiliated
and tortured to either accept the VRS or to
accept the letter of working in the
merchandising department, which is in lower
grade than the grade wherein the deceased was
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
functioning. It is the cause which instigated the
deceased to take the extreme step. The
accused Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi and Manish
Kumar Sharma are the officers of the employer-
company, who were present in the meeting,
had every reason to humiliate the deceased to
an extent that he should accept their dictates,
otherwise the deceased would have not taken
the extreme step. In this reference, statement
of wife of the deceased also attains importance
wherein she has stated that the deceased was
under continuous mental pressure and
depression due to behaviour of the accused.
Specific allegations have been levelled by
Jayant Kumar Ghatak and Sunil Kumar Ojha
against the accused petitioners Nipun Aneja,
Z.I. Alvi and Manish Mukar Sharma."
11 Thus, according to the High Court, the deceased
committed suicide on account of instigation in the
form of harassment & humiliation at the end of the
appellants. The question is in what manner the
appellants could be said to have instigated the
deceased that ultimately led him to commit suicide.
12 Prima facie, it appears that two things weighed
with the High Court. First, the two police statements
of the colleagues of the deceased referred to above &
secondly, the act on the part of the appellants in
handing over the letter to all the salesmen present in
the meeting including the deceased containing
instructions therein to do the work of merchandising.
This according to the High Court amounted to
demotion.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
13 The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well
settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:--
"306. Abetment of suicide. --If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
14 Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal
death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is
defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person
abets the doing of a thing, who--
First. -- Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.-- Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-- A person who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of
a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act."
15 In the decision of this Court in case of Netai
Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659,
an employee of a company was transferred from one
place to another. However, he failed to join.
Thereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing
his grievance against stagnancy to salary and
unpleasant situation. The company accepted the
resignation. Thereafter, the said employee
committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note,
alleging therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh
Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. The
same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the
deceased filed complaint, against Netai Dutta and
others under Section 306 of the IPC. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to quash
the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while
quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6
observed as under:
"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged
suicide note that the present appellant had
caused any harm to him or was in any way
responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased
was very much dissatisfied with the working
conditions at the work place. But, it may also be
noticed that the deceased after his transfer in
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha
Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a
period of two years and that the suicide took
place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the
present appellant had in any way instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or he was
responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag.
An offence under Section 306. IPC would stand
only if there is an abetment for the commission
of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment"
have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal
Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person
abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any
person to do that thing : or engages with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission taken place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, or the person should have
intentionally aided any act or illegal omission.
The explanation to. Section 107 says that any
willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of
a material-fact which he is bound to disclose,
may also come within the contours of "abetment"
(Emphasis supplied)
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the
name of the appellant at two places, there is no
reference of any-act or incidence where by the
appellant herein is alleged to have, committed
any willful act or omission or intentionally aided
or instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to
committing the act of suicide. There is no case
that the appellant has played any part or any role
in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or
resulted in the commission of suicide by
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."
16 This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia,
observed that--
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
"7. ....The prosecution initiated against the
appellant would only result in sheer harassment
to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our
opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred
in holding that the first information report against
the appellant disclosed the elements of a
cognizable offence. There was absolutely no
ground to proceed against the appellant herein."
17 This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of
Rajasthan and another, reported in (2021) 19 SCC
144, after considering the provisions of Section 306
of the IPC along with the definition of abetment
under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as
under:--
"14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of
suicide a criminal offence and prescribes
punishment for the same.
....
15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite
someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618, has defined the word 'instigate' as
under:"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act"."
16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and
its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been
discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of
S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12
SCC 190, it was observed as under:--
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by the Supreme Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also
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."
18 This Court in M. Arjunan v. State,
represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3
SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients
of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as
under:--
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence
capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 IPC."
19 This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an
accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
with regard to determining the culpability. It was
observed as under:--
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide,
there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. It
could hardly be disputed that the question of
cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of
an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behavior and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation
for abetment of suicide, the Court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the
act(s) of incitement to the commission of
suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person
would not suffice unless there be such action on
the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person
has abetted commission of suicide by another;
the consideration would be if the accused is
guilty of the act of instigation of the act of
suicide. As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above referred, instigation
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive and
the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to
hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the deceased
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
perceiving no other option except to commit
suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners
of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and
self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused
may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The
question of mens rea on the part of the accused
in such cases would be examined with reference
to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and
if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case
is required to be examined on its own facts,
while taking note of all the surrounding factors
having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased."
20 This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The
Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387,
Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th
October, 2022, after referring to the above referred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:--
"44. ...It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely
on the allegation of harassment without their
being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable."
21 The ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would
stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the
deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no
option but to commit suicide. Further, as the
extreme action of committing suicide is also on
account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be
divided into two broad categories. First, where the
deceased is having sentimental ties or physical
relations with the accused and the second category
would be where the deceased is having relations with
the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case
of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or
the hot exchange of words may result into immediate
psychological imbalance, consequently creating a
situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if
the person is unable to control sentiments of
expectations, it may give temptations to the person
to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of
husband and wife, mother and son, brother and
sister, sister and sister and other relations of such
type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
physical relations. In the case of second category the
tie is on account of official relations, where the
expectations would be to discharge the obligations as
provided for such duty in law and to receive the
considerations as provided in law. In normal
circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
cannot be equated with the official relationship. The
reason being different nature of conduct to maintain
that relationship. The former category leaves more
expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and
large, the expectations and obligations are
prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.
22 The test that the Court should adopt in this type
of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the
basis of the materials on record whether there is
anything to indicate even prima facie that the
accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e.,
suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts
is that such intention can be read into or gathered
only after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the
courts just look into the factum of suicide and
nothing more. We believe that such understanding
on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on
the nature of the offence & accusation. For example,
whether the accused had the common intention
under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only
after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis
of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the
weapon used, the role played by the accused etc.
However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and
large the facts make things clear more particularly
from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts
should know how to apply the correct principles of
law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on
record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to
understand and apply the correct principles of law to
the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to
unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and
appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family
members of the deceased and we cannot find any
fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First
Information Report with the police. However, it is
ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look
into the matter and see that the persons against
whom allegations have been levelled are not
unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial
just for the sake of prosecuting them.
23 In the case on hand, the entire approach of the
High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High
Court should have examined the matter keeping in
mind the following:
(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did
the appellants create a situation of unbearable
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
harassment or torture, leading the deceased to
see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain
this, the two statements of the colleagues of
the deceased referred to by us were sufficient.
(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the
emotional vulnerability of the deceased by
making him feel worthless or underserving of
life leading him to commit suicide?
(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire
consequences, such as harm to his family or
severe financial ruin to the extent that he
believed suicide was the only way out?
(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may
have damaged the reputation of the deceased &
push him to commit suicide due to public
humiliation & loss of dignity.
24 The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be
considered as abetment under the law in the facts &
circumstances of a given case.
25 In the overall view of the matter, we are
convinced that putting the appellants to trial on the
charge that they abetted the commission of suicide
by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process
of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name
against the appellants is made out.
26 In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High
Court is set aside. The proceedings of Criminal Case
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
No 11428 of 2007 pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.
27 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
9. In V.S.Suresh and Others (supra), the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
" The petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are
knocking at the doors of this Court calling in
question registration of a crime in Crime No.172
of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections
306, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The 2nd
respondent is the complainant.
2. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioners and the husband of the
complainant were partners of one M/s.
Soundarya Constructions. The husband of the
complainant commits suicide on 14-04-2024.
The case was closed recoding an unnatural death
report - UDR. After about 40 days of death of
the husband, the complainant registers a
complaint before the jurisdictional police on 22-
05-2024 alleging that while she was cleaning the
wardrobe of her husband she found a note which
is termed as a death note written by her
husband in his own handwriting and the contents
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
of the death note shocked and doubted that the
husband of the complainant had been coaxed or
goaded to death, as he had incurred loss of
Rs.60 crores and the loss was on account of the
petitioners herein who are the partners of M/s.
Soundarya constructions, and they are directly
responsible for her husband's death. It is alleged
by the complainant that the petitioners have
made her husband to invest money in the said
construction Company. Even though the
Company was in profit, they had projected that
the Company was in loss and on securing loan in
the name of the husband of the complainant, the
same has been utilized by these petitioners for
their personal commitments. This complaint
becomes a crime in Crime No.172 of 2024 for
offences punishable as afore-quoted.
Registration of the crime and commencement of
investigation has driven these petitioners to this
Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri C V Nagesh, learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Harish
Ganapathi, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D
R Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing
along with Sri Naveen Gudikote, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
4. The learned senior counsel Sri C V
Nagesh appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the death happened on 14-04-2024.
The husband of the complainant commits
suicide. At that point in time, nothing was
revealed nor the immediate investigation
revealed anything. After about 40 days,
claiming that the husband in his own
handwriting had written the so called death
note, these petitioners are drawn into the web of
crime. Learned senior counsel would further
submit that if the contents of the complaint are
noticed, they are absolutely vague, as all the
contents relate to things that have happened
during the lifetime of the husband of the
complainant, which the husband himself had not
complained of. He would submit that none of the
ingredients of the offence punishable under
Sections 306, 420 or 506 of the IPC are even
met in the case at hand. He would seek
quashment of the entire proceedings.
5. Per-contra, the learned senior counsel
Sri D R Ravishankar representing the 2nd
respondent-complainant would submit that
certain transactions have happened between the
husband of the complainant and the petitioners.
The police have seized the DVR which was
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
installed in the residence and have also seized
the mobiles, all of which would indicate that the
last call before the deceased committed suicide
was from the 1st petitioner who had constantly
sent messages asking the deceased to call him
urgently, he would therefore submit this is
abetment to suicide. The learned senior counsel
would also seek to place reliance upon certain
bank transactions and certain agreements
between the petitioners and the husband of the
complainant at the time when the husband of
the complainant was alive. In all, he would seek
to contend that investigation, in the least, should
be permitted to be completed. He would place
reliance upon a document at Annexure R2 to the
statement of objections, which according to him,
is the reason for transfer of funds from the
account of the complainant's husband to the 1st
petitioner. He would submit that this is the
trigger point of abetment which led to
commission of suicide.
6. I have given my anxious consideration
to the submissions made by the respective
learned senior counsel and other learned counsel
and have also perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in
dispute. The petitioners and the husband of the
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
complainant being partners of M/s. Soundarya
Constructions is a matter of record. The
husband of the complainant dies by committing
suicide on 14-04-2024. Immediately thereafter,
the police enquire into the matter and register a
UDR in UDR No.15 of 2024 after drawing the
inquest proceedings as obtaining under Section
174 of the Cr.P.C. During the course of the
enquiry, prior to registration of the UDR, the
complainant and their relatives were all present
and were enquired into. After about 40 days of
the death, a complaint comes to be registered
alleging that the petitioners have abetted the
death of the husband of the complainant, which
is on the basis of a letter the complainant
allegedly found in the wardrobe when she was
cleaning her husband's wardrobe for the purpose
of performance of the ceremony of her husband.
This becomes a crime in Crime No.172 of 2024.
Since the entire issue has now sprung from the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint. The complainant is dated 22-05-
2024. It reads as follows:-
\ "gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.05.2024
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆðøï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
DgÀPÀëPÀ oÁuÉ
ªÀĺÁ®Qëöä¥ÀÄgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
«µÀAiÀÄ: Dgï.dUÀ¢±ï (¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð dUÀ¢Ã±ï) gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀƪÀð
¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄUÉ ¸À°è¹ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀ CªÀgÀ
¥Álð£ïgïì DzÀ «.J¸ï.¸ÀÄgÉñï, J¸ï.¦.ºÉÆA§tÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀ
«gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ²æêÀÄw Dgï.±À²gÉÃSÁ DzÀ
£Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÁzÀ
Dgï.dUÀ¢Ã±ïgÀªÀgÀÄ (¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð dUÀ¢Ã±ï) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.04.2024
¨sÁ£ÀĪÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ zÉʪÁ¢Ã£ÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÁUÉÎ
18.05.2024gÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è CªÀgÀ ªÁ¯ïqÀæ¨ï£À°è CªÀgÀ §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆeÉUÉ
»qÀ®Ä vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÄÀ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ CªÀgÀ
§gÀªÀtÂUÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ "ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀƪÀð ¥ÀvÀæ" (qÉvï £ÉÆÃmï) £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¹QÌgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀgÀ°è CªÀgÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß N¢ UÁ§j ¢UÀãçªÉÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À GAmÁVzÀÄÝ K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð PÀ£ï¸ÀÖçPëÀ£ïì£À
¸ÀºÀ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄgÀÄ 60 PÉÆÃnUÀ¼À £ÀµÀÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆøÀªÁVzÉ
JA§ÄzÁV §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁVAiÉÄ EzÀÝ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À
¤dªÁVzÀÄÝ "¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð PÀ£ï¸ÀÖçPÀë£ï" ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ «.J¸ï.¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ºÉÆA§tÚ J¸ï.¦ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ ¸Á«UÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV
PÁgÀtPÀvÀðgÁVzÀÄÝ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð PÀ£ï¸ÀÖçPÀë£ï
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºÀt ºÀÆrPÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀ PÀA¥À¤ ¯Á¨sÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ £ÀµÀÖªÉAzÀÄ
¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉý £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQ£À°è CqÀªÀiÁ£À
ªÀiÁr¹ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀªÁV §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ
E®è¸À®èzÀ ¸À§Æ§Ä ºÉý £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤AzÀ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀµÀÄÖ SÁ° ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
SÁ° ºÁ¼ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀ ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁr
zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÝgÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß
AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄïï
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ EzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ F ºÀtzÀ
ªÉÆøÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼À §UÉÎ w½¹zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ F §UÉÎ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ºÁjPÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ¤Ãr ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï
PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸Àé®à ¢£À
¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÉà ZÁ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹzÀÄÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À
PÀgɧAzÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¢¹ §AzÁUÀ vÀÄA¨Á ¨ÉÃeÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
§AiÀÄ©ÃvÀgÁVgÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ EzÀ®èzÉ EwÛÃZÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ
ªÀÄÄAZÉ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ PÀgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ
PÀgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV dfðAvÀgÁUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV
ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ ¤zsÁðgÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀƪÀð¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ
DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 60
PÉÆÃn gÀÆ.UÀ¼À ªÉÆøÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
EzÀ®èzÉ ¸ÀÄ¢AzÀæ JA§ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ¸ËAzÀAiÀÄð PÀ£ï¸ÀÖçPÀë£ï£À°è
ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ EvÀ£ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è £ÉÃgÀªÁV
¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À PËæAiÀÄð, »A¸É,
¥ÀæZÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ
¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀjUÀÆ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ
EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸Á«UÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.
F zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß qÉvï£ÉÆÃmï zÉÆgÀQzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ
£ÀªÀÄä C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À ¤dªÁVzÀÄÝ vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ F ¢£À zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
¸À»/-
EAw vÀªÀÄä «zÉÃAiÀÄ
Dgï.±À²gÉÃSÁ ¸Éßûvï
PÉÆÃA dUÀ¢Ã±ï.Dgï
49 ªÀAiÀĸÀì
£ÀA.310, 6£Éà ªÉÄÊ£ï
ªÀĺÁ®Qëöä ¯ÉÃOmï
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 086
9448485045
8970407007
1. «.J¸ï.¸ÀÄgÉñï
9844020351
2. ºÉÆA§tÚ
9844059690
3. ¸ÀÄ¢ÃAzÀæ
6361960199
dUÀ¢Ã±ï gÀªÀgÀ DvÀäºÀvåÉ §UÉÎ EzÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀÄÄrDgï
£ÀA.15/24gÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄgÀt¥ÀƪÀð
¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß (C¸À®Ä) ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»/-
¦.J¸ï.gÉÃSÁ"
The complaint is completely vague. It narrates
that the petitioners have threatened that they
would kill the husband and they have forged the
signatures of the complainant's husband and
have transferred several amounts. This led to
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
the loan being taken in the name of her
husband, which further led to depression of her
husband. Broadly based upon this comes the
complaint and the crime in Crime No.172 of
2024. What is alleged against these petitioners
is the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the IPC inter alia. Section 306 of the IPC reads
as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
For an offence to become punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC, the ingredients as
obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC are
necessarily to be present. Section 107 of the
IPC reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person
abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing."
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a
warrant from a Court of Justice to
apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also
that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that
C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation
the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act,
does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act."
The interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC and
its ingredients as obtaining under Section 107 of
IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter. The Apex Court in
plethora of judgments has considered the said
issue. I deem it appropriate to notice every one
of them, which are rendered for the last 3
decades.
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
8. The Apex Court has, right from
MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH1 held as follows:
"1. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 is filed by
Mahendra Singh, the husband and his mother
Radhabai the mother-in-law of the deceased Khema
Bai. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of
1989 is Gayatri Bai the sister-in-law of the husband
of the deceased Khemabai. These three appellants
stand convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. where
under they have been sentenced to three years R.I.
each. In so far as the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No. 743 of 1989 are concerned, they have undergone
the sentence imposed on them. Sentence of the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1989 stands
suspended under orders of this Court after the
appellant has undergone sentence barely of about
ten days. The charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is
basically based on the dying declaration of the
deceased which when translated reads as follows:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They
beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these
reasons and being harassed I want to die by
burning."
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant
rightly submitted that but for the statement of
the deceased there is no other pointed evidence
from which it could be inferred that there was
any abetment so as to bring the acts of the
appellants within Section 306 I.P.C. under
which the appellants have been punished. The
dying declaration, per se, could not involve the
appellants in offence punishable under Section
306 I.P.C., because it provides for abetment of
suicide. Whoever abets the commission of
suicide, and if any person commits suicide due
(1995) Supp (3) SCC 731
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
to that reason, he shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be
liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in
Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets
the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any
person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with
one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act
or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Neither of the ingredients of abetment are
attracted on the statement of the deceased. The
conviction of the appellants under Section 306
I.P.C. merely on the allegation of harassment to
the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants
deserve to be acquitted of the charge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH2 the Apex Court has held as
follows:
"9. So far as the offence under Section 306 of
IPC is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial
Court and the High Court have committed
gross error of law in holding the accused-
appellant guilty and therefore conviction
under Section 306 IPC deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
10. Section 306 IPC provides that if any
person commits suicide whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be liable to
be punished. The ingredients of abetment are
set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as
under:
(2001) 9 SCC 618
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
"107. Abetment of thing.-A person abets the
doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigate any
person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages
with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing."
.... .... ....
13. The present case is not one which
may fall under clauses, secondly and thirdly of
Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The case has
to be decided by reference to the first clause,
i.e., whether the accused-appellant abetted the
suicide by instigating her to do so.
14. It is beyond doubt that Seema did
commit a suicide. Undisputedly, such suicide
has been committed within a year of the date
of marriage. What happened on the date of
occurrence is very material for the purpose of
recording a finding on a question of abetment.
Enough material is available on record by way
oral and documentary evidence with which we
shall now deal with.
.... .... ....
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
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
In S.S.CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN3 the
Apex Court has held as follows:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also 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.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen in our day-to-
day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs
from the other. Different people behave differently in
the same situation.
27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically
examine the facts of this case in the light of the
settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious
that no conviction can be legally sustained without
any credible evidence or material on record against
the appellant. The order of framing a charge under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably
(2010) 12 SCC 190
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of
justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial
without any credible material whatsoever.
Consequently, the order of framing charge under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and
all proceedings pending against him are also set
aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of M. ARJUNAN v. STATE4 it is held by
the Apex Court as follows:
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence
Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The
act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased
by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306
Indian Penal Code.
8. In our considered view, in the case at hand,
M.O. 1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5,
would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide
by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation
or abetment by the Appellant-deceased. Having
advanced the money to the deceased, the
Appellant-Accused might have uttered some
abusive words; but that by itself is not
sufficient to constitute the offence Under
Section 306 Indian Penal Code From the
evidence brought on record and in the facts and
(2019) 3 SCC 315
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
circumstances of the case, in our view the
ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code
are not established and the conviction of the
Appellant-Accused Under Section 306 Indian
Penal Code cannot be sustained."
(Emphasis supplied)
In GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB5 the
Apex Court holds as follows:
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment,
as specified Under Section 107 of the Indian
Penal Code, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to determine
the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to
establish or show that the Appellant herein had
a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of
mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The
ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to
be ostensibly present but has to be visible and
conspicuous. However, what transpires in the
present matter is that both the Trial Court as
well as the High Court never examined whether
Appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is
held to have committed. The conviction of
Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High
Court on the theory that the woman with two
young kids might have committed suicide,
possibly because of the harassment faced by
her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne
out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of
the PWs do not show that the wife was
unhappy because of the Appellant and she was
forced to take such a step on his account.
(2020) 10 SCC 200
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
.... .... ....
20. In such circumstances, we have no
hesitation in declaring that the Trial Court and the
High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was
driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or
atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing
more than an inference, without any material
support. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis for
sustaining conviction of the Appellant, Under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, has
clearly held that abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing a thing. It should be a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid commission of suicide, failing
which, such cases of conviction cannot be
sustained, as there should be clear mens rea on
the part of the accused to drive the deceased for
commission of such act.
9. The Apex Court in the case of
MAHENDRA SINGH supra was considering a
case where the wife of the accused had
committed suicide. The allegation was that the
husband was having illicit relationship with the
sister-in-law and, therefore, the wife had
committed suicide by burning. The Apex Court
acquits the accused. In the case of RAMESH
KUMAR supra, the Apex Court observes that
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
investigation was to goad, urge forward, provoke
incite or encourage to do an act. If these
ingredients are not present such actions would
lead to acquittal.
10. The Apex Court, later in certain cases,
while interpreting Section 306 of the IPC holds
that there should be a positive act, proximate to
the time or date of occurrence of the incident
and that positive act should be either direct or
indirect. The Apex Court in the case of
AMALENDU PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL6
has held as follows:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken
the view that before holding an accused guilty of an
offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of
the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
(2010) 1 SCC 707
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
13. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide
and in the commission of the said offence, 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. Therefore, the act of
abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression "abetment" has been
defined under Section 107 IPC which we have
already extracted above. A person is said to
abet the commission of suicide when a person
instigates any person to do that thing as stated
in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in
clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC.
Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted
is committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original
offence. Learned counsel for the respondent
State, however, clearly stated before us that it
would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section
107 IPC only would be attracted. According to
him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out
as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA
v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER7
has held as follows:
"9. "Abetment" involves mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
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. To 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
Again, the Apex Court in the case of MARIANO ANTO
BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE8
has held 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.
.... .... ....
48. It is well settled that the Courts ought to
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. Reference may be made to the judgment of
a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar
v. State of Chhattisgarh9, wherein this Court set-
aside the conviction of the accused for the offence
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
under Section 306 IPC as ingredients of Section 306
IPC were not satisfactorily proved. It was observed
as under:--
"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)
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
The Apex Court in the case of PRABHAT KUMAR
MISHRA V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH9, holds as
follows:
"18. The parameters required to bring an act
or omission by the person charged within the
purview of the offence under Section 306IPC have
been elaborated by this Court time and again and a
few of these judgments are quoted below for ready
reference.
19. In Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [Netai
Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 543] in almost similar circumstances, this
Court quashed the proceedings sought to be taken
against the petitioner under Section 306IPC. The
relevant observations from the said judgment are
reproduced as under : (SCC pp. 660-61, paras 4-7)
"4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee
of M/s M.L. Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of
his employment, he had been posted at various
worksites of the Company and on 11-9-1999 he was
transferred to the worksite of the Company's stores
located at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata. It seems
that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab Kumar
Nag did not join duty and after a period of about two
years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his
own hand wherein he expressed his grievance of
stagnancy of salary and also alleged that he was a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. The Company
accepted his resignation with immediate effect. On
16-2-2001, a dead body was found at the railway
tracks near Ballygunge Railway Station and it was
revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar Nag.
His brother went to the office where Pranab Kumar
Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body
of Pranab Kumar Nag was released to his brother
after the post-mortem examination on 19-2-2001.
After a period of two months, a complaint was lodged
before the police post on the basis of a suicide note
allegedly recovered from the dead body of Pranab
(2024)3 SCC 665
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
Kumar Nag. Based on the complaint, a case was
registered against the appellant and some others. A
translated copy of the suicide note is produced before
us by the appellant. We have carefully read the
alleged suicide note. The substance of this suicide
note is that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag alleged that
appellant Netai Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee
engaged him in several wrongdoings (he has shown
as a type of torture) and at the end of the letter, a
reference is also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and
Netai Dutta alleging that he reported certain
incidents to them. A reading of the letter would show
that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag was not very much
satisfied with the working conditions in the office. In
the letter he has stated that he had to be at the
workplace sometimes throughout the day and night
and he had to remain in the company of some
drivers who had been sometimes in drunken
condition at about one o'clock or two o'clock in the
night. It is also alleged that the drivers who had been
present at the workplace had been having non-
vegetarian food. He also complained that he had to
work even on Sundays. He further stated that one
day he could leave the workplace at 8 o'clock in the
evening and all the restaurants were closed and that
he reported the matter to the present appellant.
5. There is absolutely no averment in the
alleged suicide note that the present appellant had
caused any harm to him or was in any way
responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was
very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at
the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the
deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined
the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had
absented himself for a period of two years and that
the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be
said that the present appellant had in any way
instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was
responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An
offence under Section 306IPC would stand only if
there is an abetment for the commission of the
crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been
stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860.
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a
thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or
engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally
aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to
Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, may also come within the contours
of "abetment".
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the
name of the appellant at two places, there is no
reference of any act or incidence whereby the
appellant herein is alleged to have committed any
wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that
the appellant has played any part or any role in any
conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in
the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar
Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no
allegation made by the complainant that the
appellant herein in any way was harassing his
brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered
against the appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note
do not in any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against the
appellant would only result in sheer harassment to
the appellant without any fruitful result. In our
opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in
holding that the first information report against the
appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable
offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed
against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit
case where the extraordinary power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be
invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellant and accordingly allow the
appeal."
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
20. In M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State,
(2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , this
Court held as below : (SCC pp. 636-39 & 642-45,
paras 36-49, 62, 65 & 68)
"36. We would like to deal with the concept of
"abetment". Section 306 of the Code deals with
"abetment of suicide" which reads as under:
'306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.'
37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere
defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and
import is well known and requires no explanation.
"Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus
implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an
offence considering that the successful offender is
beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Section 309IPC.
39. "Abetment of a thing" has been defined
under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it
appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as
under:
'107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets
the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
or
Secondly.--Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.'
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along
with Section 107 reads as under:
'Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at
the time of the commission of an act, does anything
in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.'
40. The learned counsel also placed reliance
on yet another judgment of this Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , in which a three-Judge Bench
of this Court had an occasion to deal with the case of
a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband
and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are
free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you
like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh
Kumar committed suicide.
41. This Court in para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has
examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629)
'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.'
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
In the said case this Court came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence and material
available on record wherefrom an inference of the
appellant-accused having abetted commission of
suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may
necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of
W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC
(Cri) 107] , this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90,
para 17) 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 her life by
committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a
victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
domestic life, quite common to the society, to which
the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
difference 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.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and
"goading". The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person's suicidality pattern
is different from the others. Each person has his own
idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in
dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that
in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide.
46. In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives
Ltd. [V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd.,
(2010) 10 SCC 361 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1290] this
Court has held that when prima facie no case is
made out against the accused, then the High Court
ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under
Section 482CrPC and quashed the complaint.
47. In a recent judgment of this Court
in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan
Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] ,
this Court quashed the conviction under Section
306IPC on the ground that the allegations were
irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High
Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.
48. In the instant case, what to talk of
instances of instigation, there are even no allegations
against the appellants. There is also no proximate
link between the incident of 14-1-2005 when the
deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis
car with the factum of suicide which had taken place
on 18-1-2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died
because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a
joint family, instances of this kind are not very
uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual
differs from person to person. Each individual has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different
people behave differently in the same situation. It is
unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
taken place in the family. But the question that
remains to be answered is whether the appellants
can be connected with that unfortunate incident in
any manner?
49. On a careful perusal of the entire material
on record and the law, which has been declared by
this Court, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that
the appellants are not even remotely connected with
the offence under Section 306IPC. It may be relevant
to mention that criminal proceedings against the
husband of the deceased Anandraj (A-1) and Easwari
(A-3) are pending adjudication.
***
62. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court in the backdrop of
interpretation of various relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
Section 482CrPC, gave the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
'102. ... (1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.'
***
65. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] observed thus : (SCC p.
128, para 8)
"8. ... It would be an abuse of process of the
court to allow any action which would result in
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers, court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto."
***
68. In the light of the settled legal position, in
our considered opinion, the High Court was not
justified in rejecting the petition filed by the
appellants under Section 482CrPC for quashing the
charges under Section 306IPC against them. The
High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings
so that the appellants who were not remotely
connected with the offence under Section 306IPC
should not have been compelled to face the
rigmaroles of a criminal trial. As a result, the charges
under Section 306IPC against the appellants are
quashed."
21. It is not in dispute that the
prosecution case is entirely based on the
suicide note left behind by the deceased before
committing suicide. On a minute perusal of the
suicide note, we do not find that the contents
thereof indicate any act or omission on the part
of the appellant-accused which could make him
responsible for abetment as defined under
Section 107IPC.
22. We have minutely perused the suicide
note (reproduced supra) which clearly shows
that the deceased was frustrated on account of
work pressure and was apprehensive of various
random factors unconnected to his official
duties. He was also feeling the pressure of
working in two different districts. However,
such apprehensions expressed in the suicide
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
note, by no stretch of imagination, can be
considered sufficient to attribute to the
appellant, an act or omission constituting the
elements of abetment to commit suicide. The
facts of the case at hand are almost identical
to Netai Dutta [Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.,
(2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] . Thus,
we have no hesitation in holding that the
necessary ingredients of the offence of
abetment to commit suicide are not made out
from the charge-sheet, and hence allowing
prosecution of the appellant is grossly illegal
for the offences punishable under Section
306IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
tantamounts to gross abuse of process of law.
23. It may be noted that in the first
instance, the investigating agency itself
proposed a closure report in the matter after
conducting thorough investigation. In this
background, we are of the opinion that there
does not exist any justifiable ground so as to
permit the prosecution of the appellant for the
offences under Section 306IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
24. Thus, the impugned order [Prabhat
Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine
All 1496] passed by the High Court and all
proceedings sought to be taken against the
appellant in the criminal case pending for the
offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are hereby
quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed
accordingly. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, again, in the case of AMUDHA V.
STATE10, has held as follows:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 373
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
"10. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in
the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh,1 after considering the provisions of
Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, in paragraph
43, held thus:
"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal
position, we are required to address whether
there has been abetment in committing
suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation
of harassment without any positive action in
proximity to the time of occurrence on the part
of the accused that led a person to commit
suicide, a conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual
remark that is likely to cause harassment in
ordinary course of things will not come within
the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or
a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status
of abetment. There has to be positive action
that creates a situation for the victim to put an
end to life."
(emphasis added)
In the case of Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2, in paragraph
12, this Court held thus:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently
taken the view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is
also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
(emphasis added)
11. Taking the charge sheet as correct,
we find that there were no acts of incitement
on the part of the appellant proximate to the
date on which the deceased committed suicide.
No act is attributed to the appellant proximate
to the time of the suicide which was of such a
nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of
committing suicide. Therefore, no offence is
made out against the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. All aforesaid judgments of the Apex
Court were acquitting the accused who were
convicted of offences punishable under Section
306 of the IPC. In some cases the Apex Court
directs High Courts to entertain such petitions in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C., and following the said judgments,
this Court in plethora of cases has quashed
proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. On a coalesce of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court as afore-quoted
right from 1995 to 2024, what would
unmistakably emerge is that, there must be
mens rea and actus reus for an offence under
Section 306 of IPC, as there must be a positive
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
act to instigate in aiding suicide. Proximate to
the death must be a dynamic act, be it direct or
indirect. It should be proximate to the
occurrence of death and it should be instigation
of the kind that it drives a person to commit
suicide. Thus, if these ingredients are present in
a given case, exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would not be
available. Likewise, if they do not find place in a
given case, this Court would step in and
obliterate the proceedings. If on the afore-
quoted law that is laid down, the facts obtaining
in the case at hand are re-assessed, what would
unmistakably emerge is, that the death of the
husband of the complainant has no proximity to
any of the alleged instigations of the petitioners.
13. The sheet anchor of the submission of
the learned senior counsel for the respondent is,
a letter, which according to him, is the reason
for commission of suicide. It is appended as
Annexure R2 to the objections. It reads as
follows:
"Tel: 23348423
23317896
23319134
SOUNDARYA CONSTRUCTIONS
Promoters, Builders, Developers, Engineers &
Contractors
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN"
SUBJECT: ISSUE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE
We SOUNDARYA CONSTRUCTIONS is the owner
of the property located at No-95, 2nd Main, Link
Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-560020, do
hereby we declare and confirm that due to
mutual understanding we have given full
authorization to Mr. V.S Suresh.
We (S.P HOMBANNA & R. JAGADHISH) have no
objection and convey my consent to Mr. V.S
Suresh for further any works he will be the
responsible for the all the future usages and
liabilities and V.S Suresh will be the
authorization to sign all the documents related
to office.
On Corresponding to the details provided, the
period date start from 01-06-2019.
Signature of Landlord
For SOUNDARYA CONSTRUCTIONS
Sd/-
Partner
(S.P HOMBANNA)
For SOUNDARYA CONSTRUCTIONS
Sd/-
Partner
For SOUNDARYA CONSTRUCTIONS
Sd/-
Partner
(R. JAGADHISH)"
(Emphasis added)
The learned senior counsel would emphasize
upon the fact that the signature of the husband
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
of the complainant is forged, due to which all the
funds are transferred to the account of the 1st
petitioner. The said submission is, to say the
least, preposterous. The said no objection
certificate issued by the complainant's husband
and one S.P.Hombanna is dated 01-06-2019,
suicide is on 14-04-2024 - a gap of 5 years. If
this no objection certificate was forged and
based upon this, transaction has happened, for 5
years it is ununderstandable as to how and why
the husband of the complainant kept quiet, when
transaction before his eyes was taking place. If
this is the main ground projected by the learned
senior counsel for the 2nd respondent, permitting
further proceedings would become an abuse of
the process of the law.
14. The other factors that are narrated
about transactions happening between the 1st
petitioner or the 2nd petitioner and the husband
of the complainant are all during the lifetime of
the husband of the complainant. While it is
unfortunate that a life is lost, but it is equally
important that the accused who have nothing to
do with the loss of life of the deceased should
not always have the Damocles sword hanging on
their head, as there is neither abetment nor
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
goading nor proximity of any incident
whatsoever in the complaint.
15. The learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that the entire investigation
was complete and what was awaiting was filing
of a final report before the concerned Court.
Therefore, to satisfy myself, I directed placing of
the investigation papers. The entire
investigation papers were also placed. Even
there, not a titter of a document is found that
would pin these petitioners down for any act of
abetment for suicide of the husband of the
complainant. As observed by the Apex Court,
human mind is an enigma. What drives a
person to an extreme act of commission of
suicide is unfathomable, it may be due to myriad
circumstances, though it result in losing of a
precious life. The lives of the living,
notwithstanding the fact they have nothing to do
with such commission of suicide, should not be
made miserable by permitting further
proceedings.
16. What remains is the offence under
Section 420 of the IPC. Section 420 of the IPC
has its ingredients in Section 415 of the IPC. If
the complainant's husband had been lured into
something during his lifetime, it was open for
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
him to complain, not the wife of the complainant
after the death of her husband. The ingredients
of neither Section 306 of the IPC nor Section
420 of the IPC are even found to its semblance
in the case at hand. It becomes apposite to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL11
wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16. The principles laid down by this Court have
consistently been followed, as well as in the recent
judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court
in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra2.
(Emphasis supplied)
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
In the light of the facts as narrated hereinabove
and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court
on the issue .
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR and further investigation in Crime
No.172 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru stands quashed qua the
petitioners.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made
in the course of the order are only for the
purpose of consideration of the case of
petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
the same shall not come in the way of any
other proceedings pending between the
parties before any other fora.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands
disposed."
10. Perusal of the impugned complaint and bearing
in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid
judgments, it would be suffice to come to the conclusion
that it cannot be said that the petitioners i.e., accused
No.8 and 12 are guilty of the offences alleged.
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21774
HC-KAR
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition No.13795/2024 and
Writ Petition No.33879/2024, are hereby
allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime
No.187/2024 dated 14.11.2014 registered
by Bylakuppe Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 108 read with
Section3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, pending on the
file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM., Periyapatna, Mysore District, insofar
as qua petitioner/accused No.8 and
petitioner/accused No.12 are concerned, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
12. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
DL
