Karnataka High Court

Sujatha W/O. Bheemappa Narayani vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 20.02.2025
Pronounced on : 07.03.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101512 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1 . SUJATHA
W/O. BHEEMAPPA NARAYANI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
RESIDENT OF VAJAPEY COLONY,
NOW AT: ASUTI,
TALUK: RON,
DISTRICT: GADAG.

2 . MANJU
S/O NAGAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOURER,
RESIDENT OF ASUTI,
TALUK: RON,
DISTRICT: GADAG.

3 . IRAPAVVA
W/O. NAGAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
RESIDENT OF ASUTI,
TALUK: RON,
2

DISTRICT GADAG - 583 231.

... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION
DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 580 011.

2. SMT. CHANDRAVVA
W/O. HOLEYAPPA NARAYANI
AGE. 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION SELF-EMPLOYED,
RESIDENT OF SECTOR NO.14, NAVANAGAR,
TALUK AND DISTRICT
BAGALKOT - 587 101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARAD A.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1;
SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO. 191/2023 (FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO. 98/2021 OF
NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT BAGALKOTE REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 306, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
3

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are at the doors of this

Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023,

pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM,

Bagalkot, arising out of crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the

IPC.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners, Sri Sharad V.Magadum, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Raja

Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant, mother of one

Bheemappa Narayani. Bheemappa Narayani was married to the 1st
4

petitioner and the other two petitioners are the brother-in-law and

mother-in-law of Bheemappa Narayani, the deceased. The son of

the complainant and the 1st petitioner are husband and wife. It

appears that the relationship between the two had floundered and

the wife had initiated certain proceedings against the

husband/deceased. On 21-10-2021, it is the case of the

complainant, that her son committed suicide unable to bear the

torture of the wife and her family members. On the commission of

suicide, a case of unnatural death comes to be registered. A little

thereafter, i.e., one month to be precise on 20.11.2021, the

younger son of the complainant, at about 9.30 a.m. is said to have

been using the mobile phone of his brother, who was by then

deceased. He comes across some call records which are said to

have been recorded in the mobile phone. It was found that the 2nd

petitioner used to call the deceased regularly so as the other

petitioners were harassing the deceased son of the complainant.

The wife is said to have threatened the deceased of dire

consequences.
5

4. Based upon the said voice recording, the complainant then

reaches the doors of the jurisdictional police and registers the

complaint. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.98 of

2021 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306, 504

r/w. 149 of the IPC. The investigation commences and accused 1

to 7 approach this Court seeking quashment of FIR registered

against them in Writ Petition No.105991 of 2023. During the

pendency of the said writ petition, the Police file a charge sheet

only against the present petitioners - accused No.1 to 3, dropping

accused Nos.4 to 7, who had approached this Court in the aforesaid

writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners are now calling in question

the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023, for the afore-quoted

offences, which is registered against them.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

vehemently contend that the wife of the deceased, mother-in-law

and the 2nd petitioner have duly called the son of the complainant

and tortured him by using the phrase 'go and die'. Unable to bear

the said torture, the son of the complainant commits suicide. It is

the submission of the learned counsel that there is no case made
6

out for abetment to suicide as mere utterance of words 'go and die'

would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In this regard,

he would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex

Court which would bear consideration qua their relevance.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd

respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions

to contend that the petitioners were every day calling the son of the

complainant and torturing him. Every time when the call comes

they were hurling abuses and one such abuse was "you are useless

go and die" and have also threatened with dire consequences, if the

husband wants to get the wife back. He would submit that call

record details of making several calls to the deceased are part of

the charge sheet. He therefore, submits that the petitioners have

abetted the commission of suicide of the son of the complainant

and seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would also

toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent in contending that the Police after investigation have

filed the charge sheet with the finding that the petitioners have
7

abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it is for them

to come out clean in a full-blown trial is his submission.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

relationship between accused 1 to 3 with the deceased son of the

complainant is as stated above. The son of the complainant

commits suicide on 21-10-2021. There were no suspects. An

unnatural death is registered by the Police on the incident. A

month later, it appears that the younger son of the complainant

was handling the mobile phone of the deceased; comes across

some videos and call record details of continuous conversation

between the petitioners and the deceased. One such call record is

said to have been seen/heard by the complainant in which the wife

of the deceased and his mother-in-law would hurl abuses on the

deceased by saying "go and die" or do whatever he wants. With

this video, the 2nd respondent registers the complaint of abetment
8

to suicide. Since the entire issue triggered from the complaint, I

deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

"UÉ,
|| . ಎ . ಐ. ಾ ೇಬರು,
ನವನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ.

ಾನ ೇ,

ಇದರ ಾನು ೕಮ ಚಂದ ವ# ಗಂಡ ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾ ಾಯ*, ವ+ಾ : 58 ವಷ-,
ಉ/ೊ ೕಗ : 0ೌರ2ಾ3-ಕಳ6, ನಗರಸ8ೆ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ, <ಾ : =ಂದೂ ಚಲ>ಾ?, ಾ|| ೆಕ@ರ
ನಂ.14, ನವನಗರ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ Aಾ॥ B॥ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ ತಮD ಗ*ೕಕರಣ ಾF GೕFದ
ಮರು ೇH2ೆ ಏ ೆಂದ ೆ :-

ಾನು ? ಾಂಕ : 21/10/2021 ರಂದು ನನJ ಮಗ ಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ)
ಾ ಾಯ* ಈತನು ೇಣು ಾM2ೊಂಡು ೖತ>ಾದ ಬOೆP ತಮD ಮುಂ/ೆ ಾನು Q+ಾ-R
2ೊS@ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ನನJ Q+ಾ-RಯನುJ V#ೕಕWV2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ಮಗನ ಾXನ ಕುWತು
ಅ ಾ#8ಾXಕ ಾವZ ಎಂದು ಪ ಕರಣ /ಾಖಲ ಾF2ೊಂFದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ.

? ಾಂಕ : 20.11.2021 ರಂದು ಮುಂ<ಾ ೆ 09.30 ಗಂ\ೆಯ ಸು ಾWOೆ ನನJ
ಮಗ ಾದ ೖತ Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾ ಾಯ* ಈತನು ಉಪ]ೕ^ಸು UದT
_.ಸಂ.9110409086 ೇದTನುJ ನನJ ಇ ೊJಬ` ಮಗ ಾದ ಾಗಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ)
ಾ ಾಯ* ಈತನು _9ೈಲನುJ ಹುಡು2ಾF/ಾಗ 2ೈOೆ VMbದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW ಾಗಪ) ಈತನು
ೖತ ನನJ ಮಗ ಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತನ _9ೈಲನುJ ಪW ೕ ಸcಾ^ 2ೆಲdಂದು ಕ ೆಗಳ
ಸಂ8ಾಷ ೆಯ eೇಖರ ೆ+ಾ^ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW _9ೈಲದ ಯ eೇಖರ ೆOೊಂಡಂತಹ
ಸಂ8ಾಷ ೆಗಳನುJ ನನJ ಮಗ ಾದ ಾಗಪ) ಈತನು 2ೇHV2ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ನಮOೆ ೇHದTರ
ಸದW ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗ ಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತನ _9ೈ Oೆ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^ Kೕಮಪ)ನ ಈತನ
ೆಂಡ +ಾದ ಸು<ಾAಾ ಇವಳ ಸ ೋದರ ಾದ ಮಂಜು ತಂ. ಾಗಪ) ತಳ>ಾರ ಾ॥ ಅಸೂS
Aಾ। ೋಣ ಈತನ _ೕ.ನಂ.7483813149 ೇದTWಂದ ಸತತ>ಾ^ ಾತ ಾF2ೊಂಡು
ಬಂ?ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW ಕ ೆಗಳ ಸಂ8ಾಷ ೆಗಳನುJ 2ೇಳcಾ^, ಅದರ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^ ನನJ
ಮಗ ಾದ ೖತ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತGOೆ ಆತನ ೆಂಡ +ಾದ ಸು<ಾAಾ, ಅವಳ ಸ ೋದರ ಮಂಜು,
Aಾh+ಾದ ಈರಪವ#, ಸ ೋದW ಸತ ವ#, ಅವಳ iಕbಮD&ಾದ ೇಣು2ಾ ಾಗೂ iಕbಪ) ಾದ
ಸಂಗಪ), ಾ।। ಇಬ`ರೂ ಹುನಗುಂದ ಅ/ೇ Wೕ ೖತ ಮಗನ ೆಂಡ ಯ ಸಂಬಂR+ಾದ
9

ಫMೕರಪ) ( kಕರು) ಇವ ೆಲರೂ ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗ ೊಂ?Oೆ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^
lೕGನ ಾತ ಾF ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ =ಂ ೆ GೕFದTಲ/ೇ ನನJ ಮಗ ತನJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ
ಕHV2ೊಡು ಅಂAಾ ೇHದT2ೆb ನನJ ಮಗGOೆ ಇಲ ಸಲದ Wೕ ಯ ಅ>ಾಚ ಶಬTಗHಂದ 9ೈ/ಾF
ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF "Gೕನು
Gೕನು ನಮD ಹ ರ
U GನJ ೆಂಡ ಯ ಬOೆP ಇ ೊJ D
2ೇHದ ೆ GನJ Bೕವ ಸ=ತ pಡುವZ?cಾ"
pಡುವZ?cಾ ಅಂAಾ Bೕವದ ಧಮM ಾMದ Xಷಯ ನನJ ಮಗ ಾದ
ಾಗಪ) ಇವನ ಮುಂ/ೆ ೇHದ Xಷಯ ನಮD ಮುಂ/ೆ ೇHದನು.
ೇHದನು 2ಾರಣ ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗನ
ಸಂ ಾರದ Aೊಂದ ೆಗಳ6 ಇರುತU>ೆ ಅಂAಾ ನಮOೆ ಈಗ Hದು ಬಂ?ತು.
ಬಂ?ತು ಅಲ/ೇ ನನJ ಮಗನ
_9ೈrದ
_9ೈrದ ನ ಸಂ8ಾಷ ೆಗಳನುJ 2ೇH ನನJ ಮಗನ ಾXOೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ಎಲರೂ 2ಾರಣರು
ಅಂAಾ ನಂತರ Hhತು.
Hhತು ೖತ ನನJ ಮಗGOೆ ಆತನ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ತಮD ತವರು ಮ ೆಯ
ಇಟು@2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗGOೆ ಸಂ ಾWಕ Bೕವನದ Aೊಂದ ೆ 2ೊಡುವ ಉ/ೆTೕಶ?ಂದ
Gರಂತರ ಾನVಕ =ಂ ೆಯನುJ GೕF ಸಂ ಾWಕ Bೕವನದ Bಗು0ೆ) ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ಾF
Gೕನು ಏನು 9ೇ2ಾದರೂ
"Gೕನು ಾF2ೊ ನನJನುJ ಏನು ಾF2ೊಳoಲು ಆಗುವZ?cಾ"
ಆಗುವZ?cಾ ಅಂAಾ ಆತನ
ೆಂಡ ೇHದುT, ಅsೆ@ೕ ಅಲ/ೇ ನನJ ಮೃತ ಮಗನ ೆಂಡ Oೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ಆರೂ ಜನರು
9ೆಂಬಲ?ಂದ ಅವಳ6 ನನJ ಮಗ ೊಂ?Oೆ uೆ ಾJ^ ಸಂ ಾರ ಾಡ/ೇ Aೊಂದ ೆ 2ೊಡುAಾU
ಬಂ?ರುAಾU ೆ ಅಂAಾ _9ೈr ಸಂ8ಾಷ ೆ ಾಗೂ ನನJ ಮಗ ಾಗಪ) ಈತGಂದ Hದು
ಬಂ?ರುತU/ೆ.
/ೆ ಇವ ೆಲರು GೕFದ Mರುಕುಳ?ಂದ ನನJ ಮಗ ಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ/ೆ
/ೆ ೊ&ೆಯಪ)
ಾ ಾಯ* ಈತನು ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF ಮರಣ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ
ಪ uೋದ ೆ GೕF ಾXOೆ 2ಾರ*ಭೂತ ಾ^ರುAಾU ೆ.ೆ

2ಾರಣ ನನJ ಮಗನ ಾXOೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ಎಲರೂ ೊ ೆOಾರರು ಇರುAಾU ೆ. ಆದTWಂದ
ಈ ೕcೆ ೇHದ 7 ಜನರ ೕcೆ ಸೂಕU 2ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ಜರು^ಸ9ೇ2ೆಂದು ನನJ ಮರು ೇH2ೆ
ಇರುತU/ೆ.

ಾ>ೆಲರೂ ಮ ೆಯ XuಾWV2ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಈಗ ಾ ೆOೆ ಬಂದು ೇH2ೆ Gೕಡಲು
ತಡ>ಾ^ರುತU/ೆ.

ಸwಳ : ನವನಗರ-9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 24/11/2021
¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ/-
ಓ. ೇ>ೇ ಸW ಅ/ೆ."

(Emphasis added)
10

The complaint is that the complainant has seen the video that the

wife had hurled abuses on the husband/deceased and the mother-

in-law had threatened that if the deceased asks about the wife, he

will not be spared. It is the life threat what is averred in the

complaint. When was the threat and on what date, nothing of that

sort comes about in the complaint. This complaint becomes the

crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 against 7 persons.

10. The investigation would commence and 4 of them are

dropped from the array of accused while filing the charge sheet

against the present petitioners. Summary of the charge sheet as

obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:

"17. 2ೇVನ ಸಂ{ಪU ಾ ಾಂಶ

ಸGJR 2ೋಟ- ಸDಳ Vೕ ಯ ನವನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಹ?T 0ೈM 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ
ನವನಗರ >ಾಜ0ೇh 2ಾcೋGಯ°èರುವ ಮ ೆ ನಂಬರ 135 ೇದTರ uಾಜ- ೕಟ 2ಾಲಂ
ನಂಬರ 12 ರ , ನಮೂದ ಾFದ ಆ ೋ ಅನಂ:
ಅನಂ 1 ೇದವಳ6 ೖತ Kೕಮಪ)
ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾ ಾಯ* ವ+ಾ 30 ವಷ- ಇವನ ೆಂಡ ಇದುT ಅನಂ:
ಅನಂ 2 ಮತುU 3 ೇದವರು
ೖತನ ಅHಯ ಾಗೂ ೖತನ ಅAೆU ಇದುT ಸದWಯವರು 9ಾಗಲ2ೋSOೆ ಬಂ/ಾಗ ಇದರ
ೖತGOೆ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ Gೕನು ಭೂ3ಯ ೕcೆ ಇರ9ೇ|ಾ Gೕನು ಇರುವದWಂದ ನನJ
ಮಗHOೆ 8ಾರ ಆಗು U+ಾ Gೕನು ಸತುU ೋಗು ಅಂAಾ ೖತನ ಮನV}Oೆ 9ೇ<ಾರ ಆಗುವ
ಾOೆ ಾತ ಾFದುT ಅಲ/ೇ ಆ ೋ ಅನಂ:
ಅನಂ 1 ೇದವಳ6 ೆWOೆOಾ^ ತವರು ಮ ೆOೆ
ೋ/ಾಗ ೖತನು ನನJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ಕHV 2ೊF ಅಂAಾ _ೕ9ೈr ಮು~ಾಂತರ
ೇHದT2ೆb ಮೂರು ಜನ ಆ ೋ ತರು ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ದೂರ>ಾ*ಯ ೖತGOೆ ೕ ಂದ
ೕcೆ ಾನVಕ =ಂ ೆ,ೆ Mರುಕುಳ GೕF,
GೕF ಸಂ ಾWಕ Bೕವನದ , 9ೇ<ಾರ>ಾಗುವಂAೆ
11

ಾತ ಾFದTWಂದ ಆತDಹAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ದುಸDಂÃರ
ದುಸDಂ ರ ೆ GೕFದTWಂದ ಮನ ೊಂದು
Bೕವನದ Bಗು¥Éì ೊಂ? ? ಾಂಕ:
ಾಂಕ 20-10-2021 ರಂದು ಾ 11 ಗಂ\ೆhಂದ
? ಾಂಕ:
ಾಂಕ 21-10-2021 ರ 9ೆಳ^ನ 10-00 ಗಂ\ೆಯ ನಡುXನ ಅವRಯ ತನJಷ@2ೆb Aಾ ೆ
ಉಲು- ಾM2ೊಂಡು ಆತDಹAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾFದ ಅಪ ಾಧ.
ಾಧ ಕಲಂ 306, 504,
506 ೆವZ 34 ಐ V.
V."
(Emphasis added)

The finding in the charge sheet is that, on 21-10-2021 the

deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. The reason is

that, the wife and the mother-in-law have tortured the deceased

husband. There are no details even in the charge sheet as to when

was the torture and what was the kind of torture. All that is

narrated in the summary of the charge sheet is that, the deceased

was depressed. He was depressed with his life and had committed

suicide. The aforesaid finding in the charge sheet or the complaint,

in the considered view of the Court, would in no way become

ingredients of abetment to suicide.

11. In the light of the offence being the one punishable under

Section 306 of the IPC, I deem it appropriate to notice the said

provision. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows:
12

"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,

abetment must be present. What is abetment is defined under

Section 107 of the IPC. 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 do 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.

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
13

facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

Interpretation of abetment of Section 107 of the IPC to become

Section 306 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve

deep into the matter. The Apex Court in plethora of judgments has

considered this issue while laying that for an abetment to suicide,

there must be goading and proximity to the death of the deceased.

In the case at hand, the allegations against the petitioners are

absolutely nebulous. There are no allegations as to when the

abuses were hurled and what were the dates of video. On such

vague findings in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there was

coxing or goading as is necessary for an offence of abetment to

suicide. The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v.

STATE OF U.P.1 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

10. There is nothing on record to show that the
appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and
further there is absolutely no material to allege that the
appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the
meaning of Section 306IPC.

1
2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
14

11. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and
bald statement that the appellant and other family members
abused the deceased by uttering casteist words but there is
nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients
for the alleged offence also.

12. 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 the aspect of abetment. In the said
case this Court has opined that there should be an intention
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each
person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and
each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-
respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible
to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases
of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its
own facts and circumstances.

13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
896] in order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306IPC this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras
12-13)

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306IPC, 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 306IPC is not sustainable.
15

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306IPC 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 306IPC."

14. In the judgment in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12
SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] this Court reiterated the
ingredients of offence of Section 306IPC. Para 25 of the
judgment reads as under : (SCC p. 197)

"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
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 that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide."

15. In the judgment in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
Kapoor [Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC
330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] this Court has considered the
scope of the provision under Section 482CrPC and has laid
down the steps which should be followed by the High Court
to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of
proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC.
Para 30 containing the four steps read as under: (SCC pp.
348-49)
16

"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the
foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following
steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482CrPC:

30.1. Step one : whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and
impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two : whether the material relied
upon by the accused would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the
complaint i.e. the material is such as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false?

30.3. Step three : whether the material
relied upon by the accused has not been refuted
by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such that it cannot be justifiably
refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with
the trial would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings in exercise of power vested in it
under Section 482CrPC. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well as
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused."

16. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this
Court, we have carefully scrutinised the material on record
and examined the facts of the case on hand. Except the
17

statement that the deceased was in relation with the
appellant, there is no material at all to show that the
appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In
fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking
the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the
police station complained about the calls which were being
made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident
from the statement of SI Manoj Kumar recorded on 5-7-
2018. In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that
the father along with the appellant went to the police post
and complained against the deceased who was continuously
calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry
him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard
to such material placed on record and in absence of
any material within the meaning of Section 107IPC,
there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the
appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of
justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial
without any credible material whatsoever.

17. In view of the same, we are of the view that the
High Court has committed error in rejecting the application
filed by the appellant by merely recording a finding that in
view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a
petition under Section 482CrPC."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of KUMAR @

SHIVA KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

31. She denied the suggestion of the defence that on
the date of the incident she had taken her children to the
school and that when she had returned to the house at

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 216
18

10:30 AM, she found her deceased sister X in an
unconscious condition.

32. PW-2 further stated that they did not keep any
poisonous medicine in the house. She did not find any bottle
containing poison near the bed of the deceased. She denied
a suggestion that she along with her another sister Shantha
and her husband Diwakar had taken her sister X to Karuna
Nursing Home.

33. PW-2 stated that she saw her father in the Mission
Hospital at 5:00 PM on 06.07.2000. She had not told and
informed her father about the incident relating to her sister.
Till the dead body of X was taken, her father was in the
hospital.

34. PW-2 stated that while it was true that the
accused was a married person, she did not know that he had
married two months prior to the incident. There are
residential houses around the house. They were having good
relation with the neighbours. The accused was having a chit
fund when he used to reside in the house. PW-2 was also a
member of the said chit fund. She denied the suggestion
that they had tried to marry the deceased with the accused
when he used to reside in their house and that the accused
had declined to marry her deceased sister which was the
reason for him to leave the house. She also denied the
suggestion that they had chit fund amount to be repaid to
the accused. She further denied the suggestion that the
deceased might have committed suicide for some other
reason and that the accused was falsely implicated as he had
refused to marry the deceased.

35. Diwakar is the husband of Shantha, the second
sister of the deceased. Diwakar is PW-3. In his examination
in chief, he stated that at the time of her death the deceased
was residing with PW-2 at Vinayakanagar. PW-2 was also the
sister of his wife Shantha.

36. On 05.07.2000 at about 09:30 AM, the deceased
X had telephoned his wife Shantha and told her that she had
consumed poison. At that time, he was present near his wife
Shantha. According to PW-3, he and his wife Shantha
19

immediately went to the house of the deceased at
Paduvarahalli. The deceased talked with his wife Shantha.
They shifted the deceased X to Nirmala Hospital and from
there to Mission Hospital. On 06.07.2000, the deceased died
in the hospital during the night time.

37. He stated that his wife Shantha had told him that
the accused was responsible for the suicidal death of the
deceased.

38. In his cross-examination PW-3 stated that before
the death of X his wife Shantha had told him about the
accused being responsible for X consuming poison. When
they had gone to the house of X and were taking her to the
hospital, X had told his wife Shantha that due to the
harassment of the accused she had consumed poison. Earlier
thereto he did not know this fact. He had seen the accused
when he used to reside in a portion of the house as a tenant.
The accused had vacated the house two years prior to the
incident whereafter he had neither seen the accused nor
knew about his whereabouts.

39. PW-3 denied the suggestion put forward by the
defence that he had stated before the police that the
deceased X was in an unconscious condition when they had
reached her house and that his wife had not told him that
the accused was the reason for the deceased consuming
poison. However, he stated that he did not hear what the
deceased X had told his wife Shantha.

40. Shantha herself deposed as PW-4. She stated that
on 05.07.2000 at about 11:00 to 11:15 AM. the deceased
had telephoned her and told her that while she was returning
home from the school after dropping the children the
accused accosted her on the way. He threatened her that
she should marry him and in case of her refusal he
would kill her by pouring acid on her. Because of this
she had consumed poison to finish her life to bring an
end to the matter. Immediately PW-4 and her husband
PW-3 came to the house of the deceased.
... ... ...
20

47. He further stated that he had not told the police
about the PW-2 telling him that the accused had threatened
his sister. He did not know the details as to how his sister X
had consumed poison and the amount of poison. He denied a
suggestion that the accused was not responsible for the
suicidal death of X and that it was because of their enmity
with the accused that they had filed a false complaint
against the accused.

48. Dr.Devdas P.K. PW-13 was the doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on
07.07.2000. He stated that on examination of the dead body
he found multiple injection marks present in front of both
the elbows. The front of the right wrist showed superficial
linear incised injury measuring 5cm in length which was
partially healed. He further stated that the stomach, small
intestine and contents, liver, kidney and blood were
preserved and sealed and thereafter sent for chemical
analysis. On 09.01.2001, he received the chemical analysis
report dated 10.10.2000. The report showed presence of
organophosphorus compound in the viscera. Death was due
to respiratory failure as a result of consumption of substance
containing organophosphorus compound.

49. In his cross-examination PW-13 stated that
organophosphorus compound is a pesticide, however, the
quantity of the poison in the viscera of the blood of the
deceased was not mentioned in the FSL report. The amount
of organophosphorus could be detected during the treatment
of the injury. The brain would be conscious till the poison
effected the brain. PW-13 could not say the time when the
deceased had consumed poison."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of

KANCHAN SHARMA and KUMAR and the unequivocal fact that

there is absolutely no finding that would even pin down these

petitioners to a solitary incident of coxing or goading, the offence of
21

abetment to suicide is not made out even in its remotest sense.

Therefore, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners

would become an abuse of the process of law and result in

miscarriage of justice.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot arising out of crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 of Navanagar Police Station, stand quashed.

SD/-

____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

nvj CT:MJ