[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Kumar Kulkarni S/O Prahlad Rao ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
CRL.P No. 102769 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102769 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KUMAR KULKARNI
S/O. PRAHLAD RAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCCU: COMPUTER PROFESSIONAL,
R/O. KOTTURU TOWN, KOTTURU,
TQ: VIJAYANAGAR, DIST: BALLARI-581 320.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VISHAL 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NINGAPPA BY KOTTUR P.S., REPRESENTED BY
PATTIHAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD.
PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 2. SMT. M.D OBAMMA W/O. MAHESHAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NIMBALGERE VILLAGE, TQ: KOTTURU,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-581 320.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
CRL.P No. 102769 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH
THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AND COGNIZANCE TAKEN
BY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BALLARI
DIST. BALLARI IN KOTTURU P.S. CRIME NO. 104/2024 IN
SPL. CASE NO.719/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC.504,
506, 420, 306 OF IPC R/W 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) 3(2)(V) 3(2)(V-A) OF
SC AND ST (POA ACT) 2015 BY ALLOWING THE PETITION;
AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed by the sole accused under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to quash the proceedings
in Spl. C. No.719 of 2024 (Crime No.104 of 2024 of Kottur
Police Station), pending on the file of the I-Additional District
and Sessions Court, Ballari, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506, 420, 306 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. In spite of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
HC-KAR
service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and
unrepresented.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner is a married man having a physically
handicapped wife and two children, and he is aged about 36
years. The petitioner only got a job for the deceased, and
except that, there is no other relationship between the
petitioner and the deceased. As the petitioner is a married
man, there is no question of him promising to marry the
deceased. The alleged incident took place on 03.07.2023. The
petitioner refused to marry the deceased and allegedly abused
her touching her caste. The alleged suicide is on 14.01.2024,
and there is no proximity between the alleged incident dated
03.07.2023 and the death of the deceased. There is a delay in
filing the complaint. The incident took place on 14.01.2024,
and the complaint was filed on 27.05.2024. The deceased has
not left any death note. Considering the above aspects, the
ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC and other
offences are not attracted. He places reliance on the decision
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
HC-KAR
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanchan Sharma
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 737, contending that there is no positive act on the part of
the petitioner to instigate or aid the commission of suicide by
the deceased. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. The learned HCGP contends that the statement of
the complainant has been recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that the petitioner, who
promised to marry the deceased, refused to marry her stating
that she belongs to a lower caste, and due to that, the
deceased committed suicide, and the petitioner caused her
death. He further submits that the statement of CW6 has also
been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has
stated that the petitioner promised to marry the deceased,
and at that time, she was residing with the deceased. He
further submits that the delay in filing the complaint has
been explained by the complainant. The charge sheet
indicates that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
HC-KAR
for the offences alleged. With this, he prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other
materials placed on record.
6. As per the charge sheet Column No.17, the
accusation against the petitioner is that he got a job for the
deceased on a contract basis on 01.01.2022 in a Taluka
Panchayat Office as a Computer Data Entry Operator and
also got her a rented house wherein the deceased was
residing with her aunt, CW6 - Mahalakshmi. The petitioner
used to take the deceased on his motorcycle. When CW1 and
CW4 enquired the deceased about her marriage, she told
them that she is in love with the petitioner and would marry
him. Thereafter, on 03.07.2023 at about 06.30 p.m., the
petitioner dropped the deceased at her house on his
motorcycle. At that time, the deceased asked him to marry
her, and he abused her and told that she belongs to a lower
caste and he belongs to an upper caste, and refused to marry
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
HC-KAR
her. At that time, the deceased stated that she would commit
suicide. CW6 has stated that the deceased committed suicide
between 14.01.2024 and 16.01.2024 by hanging herself to a
ceiling fan in the rented house. The deceased did not leave
any death note. The alleged incident of refusal to marry is
dated 03.07.2023, and the suicide occurred between 14th and
16th January 2024. Thus, there is a gap of six months. What
happened during this period has not been investigated.
Hence, there is no proximity between the alleged refusal and
the suicide. The petitioner is a married man having a
physically handicapped wife and two children. Mere refusal to
marry does not amount to abetment of suicide. There is no
intention on the part of the petitioner to drive the deceased to
commit suicide.
7. Considering the above aspects, the proceedings
against the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5471
HC-KAR
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.
C. No.719 of 2024 (Crime No.104 of 2024 of
Kottur Police Station), pending on the file of
the I-Additional District and Sessions Court,
Ballari, are quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
