Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O. Chandrappa Sutagundi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839
CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101317 OF 2017 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH S/O. CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. KRISHNAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. LAKKAWWA
W/O. CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. KRISHNAPPA
Digitally signed by B S/O. CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.28 TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
12:29:49 +0530
5. SADASHIV S/O. CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. VITHAL S/O. CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839
CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF BUILDING,
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. GANGAPPA
S/O. SHANKERAPPA KHOTGHOD
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIRE ASANGI VILLAGE,
TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO. 1540 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 306, 201 READ WITH 34 OF
IPC PURSUANT TO VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 have filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1540/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860, before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
2. The prosecution's case is that the deceased victim, Renuka, committed suicide by hanging herself from a mango tree on 24.11.2015 between 16:00 and 18:15 hours due to the physical -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 and mental torture inflicted by the accused to force her to bring property from her parental home. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the deceased victim's Respondent No.1 against Accused Nos. 1 to 6 at the Mudhol Police Station.
3. Subsequently, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 0314/2015 on 25.11.2015 against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, and 34 of the IPC.
4. After conducting an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 06.08.2016 against Accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences mentioned above before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
5. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1540/2016, the Petitioners have filed this petition.
6. Shri Pavan Doddatti, learned counsel for Accused Nos. 1 to 6, submits that the police have falsely implicated the accused in the present case and that the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute a prima facie case because there are no specific allegations detailing the acts committed by the accused.
6.1. Further, he submits that, based on the Post-mortem report and the forensic expert opinion dated 25.08.2016, the death of Smt. Renuka was caused by asphyxia resulting in cardio- respiratory failure due to hanging. There was neither a fracture of the hyoid bone nor any damage to the trachea, larynx, or lungs-- except for a neck injury--and no other injuries were found on her -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 body. It was also submitted that this incident occurred after 17 years of marriage and that the couple had three children. The police, without conducting a proper investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
6.2. Moreover, the learned counsel contended that the allegations in the complaint, which state that Accused No.1 telephonically informed the complainant's brother that his wife died due to a heart attack and that a blood clot was found near her neck, were contradicted by the Post-mortem and forensic expert opinion. Therefore, he prayed that the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1540/2016, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, be quashed.
In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relies on various decisions of the Supreme Court.
(i) Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and Anr (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3682 - (Para 18) .
(ii) Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr (2010) 3 SCC 1048, (para 16,17)-.
(iii) Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371, (para 11)- .
7. Ashok S. Kalyanshetti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, along with the learned Additional Government Advocate representing Respondent No.1 (the State), contends that a prima facie case exists against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 306 of the IPC. They argue that the evidence on record-- comprising witness statements, documentary evidence, and investigative findings--sufficiently establishes that the accused subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty, which ultimately led to her suicide.
7.1. In addition, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.2 (the complainant) argues that the charge sheet material establishes that the accused demanded dowry, which further exacerbated the harassment faced by the deceased. This allegation is substantiated by the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. The dowry demands contributed significantly to the mental and physical distress that led to the victim's decision to commit suicide.
In support, he relies on the following decision of Apex Court
(i) Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Ors AIR 2020 SC 909,(Para 8).
8. Heard the submissions made by counsel of both the parties.
9. The brief factual matrix of this case is as follows:
Respondent No.1, the deceased's brother, lodged an FIR dated 25/11/2015 against Accused Nos. 1-6 in C.C. 1540/16 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 34 of the IPC. It was alleged that the victim, Smt. Renuka, committed suicide by hanging herself from a mango tree on 24/11/2015 between 16:00 and 18:15 hours due to the instigation and harassment by Accused No.1 and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 his family member. It was further alleged that the accused demanded that the deceased bring property from her parental home.
10. The charge sheet submitted by the Mudhol police, dated 06/08/2016, reveals that the deceased committed suicide due to the mental and physical harassment caused by the accused. It alleges that Accused No.1, the husband of the deceased--who had cohabited with her for 17 years--demanded that she bring property from her parental home.
10.1. Furthermore, it was alleged that Accused No.1 informed the complainant's brother via telephone that the deceased died of a heart attack, and when the complainant and his relatives examined the body, they observed marks indicating the presence of a blood clot. They suspected that the death was caused by the physical and mental harassment inflicted by Accused Nos. 1-6.
11. Additionally, the post-mortem report and the forensic expert opinion dated 25/08/2016 reveal that the death of Smt. Renuka was caused by asphyxia resulting in cardio-respiratory failure due to hanging. There was neither a fracture of the hyoid bone nor any damage to the trachea, larynx, or lungs--except for a neck injury; no other injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
12. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to relevant legal provisions.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 12.1. Section 306 of IPC states that "if any person commits suicide, any person who abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine". Accordingly, 12.2. Section 107 of IPC defines 'Abetment of a thing' as follows:
"(i) first, a person who instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii) second, a person who 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
(iii) third, a person who intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 states that a person, who by wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of material fact which was bound to be disclosed, and voluntarily attempts to procure or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 states that any person who prior to or at the time of the commission of the 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".
12.3. Section 201 of IPC deals with Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, it states that:
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 "Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false".
11.4. Section 498-A of IPC deals with cruelty caused to woman by Husband or relative of husband. It states that:
"Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine".
"Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".
13. In the case of U. Suvetha v. State (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Supreme Court emphasized the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC as follows:
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
1. The woman must be married.
2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment.
3. Such cruelty or harassment must be committed either by her husband or by a relative of her husband.
4. To establish the elements of Section 498-A, the Supreme Court in Digambar and Anr v. State of Maharashtra (2024) INSC 1019 referred to the first explanation to Section 498-A, which states that cruelty must be inflicted on the victim in a manner that either drives her to commit suicide or causes injury or danger to her life, limb, or health. However, in the present case, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses do not reveal any specific instances of physical or mental harassment by the accused that would have led to suicide.
5. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, paragraph 20, the Apex Court defined "instigate" as follows: "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage someone to commit an act."
14. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Devaraju v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 9244/2021:DD 14.08.2023, laid down the following essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC:
1. There must be an intention on part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
2. There must be a suicidal death and abetmet thereof.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
3. There must be continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death.
4. Such irritation or annoyance must be proximate to the time of the occurrence of death.
15. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605], the Supreme Court addressed the issue of abetment by referring to the dictionary meanings of "instigation" and "goading." The Court held that there must be an intention to provoke, incite, or encourage a person to commit an act. It further observed that each person's pattern of suicidality is unique, as each individual has his or her own sense of self-esteem and self-respect.
16. In S.S. Chenna v. Vijaykumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Apex Court observed that if there is no proof of mens rea combined with an active or direct act leading to suicide, and if the alleged act was not intended to push the victim to commit suicide, then the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC would not arise. The Court held as follows:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 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".
17. The reliance placed by Respondent no.2 in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Ors AIR 2020 SC 909 in Para 6 states that "it is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding".
18. In the present case, the FIR and the statements made by the complainant and other witnesses, dated 25.11.2015, state that the deceased committed suicide due to mental and physical harassment by her husband in connection with a dowry demand for property. However, there is no mention of a direct link between the deceased's death and any specific instigation by the accused. In the absence of any particular instance of a dowry demand or a detailed account of how the harassment was inflicted, the general oral statements by the complainant and witnesses do not, prima facie, constitute offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
18.1. Therefore, based on the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 Cr.P.C., it appears that the essential ingredients for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC are absent.
19. In the case of David D' Souza v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No. 4851/2022), this Court referred to Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019 CRI.L.J. 2432) and held as follows:
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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".
20. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had analysed the principles involved in exercise of inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as under:
(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.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017 (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) 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.
21. Therefore, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the following points are noted:
1. There is insufficient proof or material on record to establish that the victim committed suicide due to physical and mental harassment by the petitioners/accused.
Moreover, there is no evidence of mens rea, combined with any active or direct act, that led to the victim's suicide.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
2. The charge sheet and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. do not specify the time, manner, or instance in which the victim was subjected to harassment by the accused. Consequently, a prima facie case disclosing the essential elements of the offences is not made out.
3. There are no specific allegations against the accused regarding abetment to suicide or cruelty. For example, the allegation that accused No.1 informed the complainant's brother that the victim died of a heart attack is unsubstantiated by any proof or documentary evidence.
4. There is also no temporal proximity between the incident and the alleged instances of harassment. Mere suspicion that the victim was subjected to physical and mental harassment before her death is too remote to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.
5. Furthermore, based on the post-mortem report and the forensic expert's opinion, the only external injury found on the victim's body is a neck injury consistent with a ligature mark, with no other signs of trauma.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3839 CRL.P No. 101317 of 2017
2. The Impugned proceedings initiated in C.C No. 1540/2016 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 222