Criminal Petition No. 3443 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3443 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. JAYARAJA C S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS TG BADAVANE, BYREGOWDA PETROL BUNK OPPOSITE HOSAKOTE TOWN, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGLAURU – 562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PADMANABHA J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
BY THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION RERPESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SHIVARAJ S/O CHIKKAPUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS POOJENAAGRAHARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU DIST KARNATAKA – 562 114.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AJAY R A, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1342/2023 REGISTERED BY THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HOSKOTE, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 306, 420, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF KARNATAKA PROHIBITION ON CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT, 2004. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1 who has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 is before this Court seeking the following relief: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court is pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1342/2023 registered by Thirumalashettahalli Police Station, pending on the file of 2ND Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court at Hoskote, for offences punishable under section 306, 420, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 3, 4 of Karnataka Prohibition on Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 in the interest of justice." 2. The prosecution alleges that the deceased, who was the wife of the complainant, had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from accused No.2 through accused Nos.1 and 3 and executed a Security Deed concerning 16 guntas of land. Subsequently, the loan amount was repaid to accused No.2, and the deceased requested the return of the sale agreement. However, accused No.2 did not return the document, repeatedly postponing its return under various pretexts. The deceased visited the house of accused No.2 on 30.01.2023, where he assured her that he would resolve the dispute. When the deceased approached accused No.3, he abused her in filthy - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 language, threatened her with dire consequences, and refused to return the document. Unable to bear the harassment meted out to her, the deceased ultimately committed suicide by consuming poison. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no allegation against accused No.1 of having instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any substantial evidence to establish the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it is contended that the continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the statement of the deceased’s son clearly establishes that accused Nos.2 and 3, acting on the instigation of accused No.1, harassed the deceased, leading her to commit suicide. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations can only be considered during the trial, and dismissal of the petition at this stage is not warranted. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 7. The deceased, after consuming poison, was found in an unconscious state and was taken to the hospital for treatment, where her statement was recorded. Subsequently, she succumbed to her condition and passed away after ten days. 8. A perusal of the death note or the declaration made by the deceased indicates that no allegations were made against accused No.1, either for instigating accused Nos.2 and 3 to harass the deceased or for directly instigating or abetting her to commit suicide. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, through a series of decisions, has laid down the essential elements required to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, as follows: i. ii. There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There must be a suicidal death and evidence of abetment leading to that death. iii. There must be continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death. iv. Such harassment or provocation must be proximate to the time of the occurrence of the death. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 873), at paragraph 23, has held as follows: “What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is that there must be an allegation of either a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment by another person would not be sufficient in itself unless there are allegations of such actions by the accused that compelled the if the commission of suicide. Furthermore, person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused are not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Therefore, it is essential to examine every case based on its own facts and the surrounding circumstances as well, which may bear upon the alleged actions of the accused and the mental state of the deceased.” circumstances, considering 11. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the deceased was found hanging from a tree with a suicide note implicating the appellant therein, alleging harassment over loan repayment. However, the evidence failed to demonstrate any active instigation, intentional aid, or conspiracy by the appellant to abet the suicide. Therefore, it was concluded - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12714 CRL.P No. 3443 of 2024 that no case was made out for framing of charges under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner. 12. In light of the above analysis and established legal principles, I proceed to pass the following order:
Decision
ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1342/2023 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court against the petitioner/accused No.2 is hereby quashed. iii. The trial Court shall proceed against the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation made in this order and the observations made if any, is for the purpose of this petitioner. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9