Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkata Subba Jois D R vs The State Of Karnataka By on 4 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6444
WP No. 15571 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15571 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATA SUBBA JOIS D.R.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SRI RAMANARAYANA JOIS,
R/AT BENAKA GROUP OF ESTATE,
ANKARAKARA, HORANADU VILLAGE AND POST,
KALASA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 181.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEVINI J AND:
KARISHETTY
Location:
High Court of 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Karnataka
KALASA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SAVITHRI H.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6444
WP No. 15571 of 2024
HC-KAR
W/O LATE JAYARAM SHETTY
R/AT BASARIMAKKI,
HORANADU VILLAGE AND POST,
KALASA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 124.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 04.03.2024
IN CRL. R.P.NO.195/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU
(PRODUCED AS ANNX-C); QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN CRIME NO. 71/2016 INCLUDING THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
DTD. 30.05.2016 FILED BY THE R-2 REGISTERED BY THE R-1
POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 306 OF
IPC (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND B) PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
MUDIGERE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6444
WP No. 15571 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.71/2016, he is before this Court calling in question the registration of the crime in crime No.71/2024 and the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.195/2022. The second respondent is the complainant. The allegation in the complaint is that the husband of the complainant had been working in a Sri Annapoorneshwari temple, Horanadu for over 25 years and was receiving monthly salary. The husband of the complainant and her son is said to have approached one Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi and requested to set up a service station.
Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi is said to have told them that the service station was not required, but suggested setting up of a shop instead. The husband of the complainant then opens a shop near the temple.
-4-NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. On 10.05.2016, the allegation is that the petitioner calls and questions the complainant's husband, as to who has authorized or permitted him to open the shop and is said to have hurled certain abuses in filthy language, this happens on 10.05.2016. The second respondent along with the husband and son go to the house of Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi and after half an hour, the second respondent returns home distressed and when the petitioner enquired with the second respondent, he is said to have scolded him by using the words 'Boli Maga' and asked him to remove the shop immediately. After about 19 days of the alleged conversation, the complainant's husband is said to have consumed poison, resulting in his death. Upon the death, a complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional Police by the complainant, which becomes a crime in Crime No.71/2016 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). The Police after investigation filed a 'B' report in the case at hand on the score that the death was due to misunderstanding, neither the petitioner nor his father was responsible for the death. The complainant contested the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate, notwithstanding the complainant's protest, accepted the 'B' -5- NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR report and closed the case. This is called in question by the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.195/2022. The learned Sessions Judge allows the revision petition and on the score that the learned Magistrate had not followed the principles laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RAVIKUMAR Vs. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA and another reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725, it is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
4. Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend the necessary ingredients as obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is absent in the case at hand. He would contend that there is neither proximity, nor goading, nor instigation by the petitioner. The Police had appropriately filed the 'B' report. The learned counsel further submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by -6- NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR plethora of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, as the death in the case at hand has happened 19 days after the alleged conversation, therefore there is no immediate proximity by any act of the petitioner, prior to the death.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant, though served in the year 2024 itself, has remained absent. Therefore, the State is heard.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the Police after investigation had filed a 'B' report and they would support the 'B' report so filed, as there was no instigation, no goading and there cannot be an abatement to suicide.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The entire issue gets triggered on registration of the complaint. The gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 of the FIR, reads as follows:
-7-NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR " ಾಂಕ 30/05/2016 ರಂದು ೆ ೆ, 06-30 ಗಂ ೆ ೆ ಾ ದು ಾರ ಾದ ೕಮ ಾ ೆ ೋಂ ಜಯ ಾಂ"ೆ#$ %ಾಸ ಬಸ(ಮ)* ೊರ ಾಡು ಾ ಮ ರವರು -ಾ.ೆ ೆ ಾಜ ಾ/ 0ೕ1ದ 23ತ ದೂ(ನ ಾ ಾಂಶ%ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ಜಯ ಾಂ "ೆ#$. ಈಗ, 25 ವಷ ಗ ಂದಲೂ ೊರ ಾಡು ೕ ಅನ7 ಪ=.ೇ ರವ( ೇ%ಾಲಯದ2> ೆಲಸ ?ಾ1 ೊಂ1ದ@ರು. ಪ ಂಗಳB ?ಾ1ದ ೆಲಸ ೆ* %ೇತನವನು7 0ೕಡು Cದ@ರು. ಈ ೆ, 8 ವಷ ಗಳ Dಂ ೆ ಧಮ ಕತ ಾದ FೕGೕ±Àéರ Hೋ ಮತುC ಅವರ ತಮI ಾಮ ಾ ಾಯಣ Hೋ ನನ7 ಗಂಡನ ಹ Cರ 0ನ ೆ ೊರ ಾ1ನ2> Lೕ ಾM %ಾಹನ NೊOೆಯುವ ಸ P ೆ$ೕಷQ ನನು7 ೇವ ಾRನದ ಸುತC ಮುತC Hಾಗದ°è. ಇಟು$ ೊಡುNೆCೕ%ೆ. ೇವ ಾRನದ2>, ೆVW ೆ ೆಲಸ ?ಾಡು ಎಂದು Yದ@ರು. ಅಂ 0ಂದಲೂ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ೆಚುW ಸಮಯ ೊರ ಾ1ನ2> ೆಲಸ ?ಾಡು Cದ@ರು, ಆದ ೆ ಈ ವ ೆಗೂ ಸ P ೆ$ೕಷQ ೊಡ2ಲ>. ಈ ಬ ೆ Gೕ ಂಗಳ Lದಲ ªÁರದ2> ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ಾಗೂ ಮಗ ೇಮಂ\ ನ HೊNೆ ೋ/ ಅಂಕಣ ಕಣದ2>ನ ಾಮ ಾ ಾಯಣ Hೋ] ಹ ರ C ಸ P ೆ$ೕಷQ ಾ) ೊ1 ಎಂದು ೇ ದು@ ಅದ ೆ* ಅವರು ಸ P ೆ$ೕಷQ ೇಡ ಅಂಗ1 ಮ ೆ ಾ) ೋ ಎಂದು ೇ ಕ Yದರು. ಈ ^ಾರವನು7 ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ ಬಂದು Yದರು. ಆಗ ದಮ ಕತ ಾದ FೕGೕಶ_ರ Hೋ]ಯವರ ಹ Cರ ೇ ಾಗ ಅವರು ಆಂಜ ೇಯ ಾ_` ೇ%ಾಲಯದ ಅಕ* ಪಕ* ೇವ ಾRನ ೆ* ಸಂಬಂ Yದ Hಾಗದ2> ಅಂಗ1 ಮ ೆ ಾ) ೊ a ಎಂದು ೇ ದರು. ಅದರಂNೆ ಸು?ಾರು ಒಂದುವ ೆ ಲc ಹಣ ಖಚು ?ಾ1 ಅಂಗ1 ೆ ೇ ಾದ ಾ?ಾ/ ತಂದು ಾಂಕ 09/05/2016 ರಂದು ಆಂಜ ೇಯ ೇ%ಾಲಯದ ಹ Cರ ರ ೆC ಪಕ* ಅಂಗ1 ಮ ೆಯನು7 Nೆ ೆ ೆವe. ಾಂಕ 10/05/2016 ರಂದು ೆ ೆ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ಮ ೆಯ2> ಾ@ಗ ಾಮ ಾ ಾಯಣ Hೋ ರವರ ಮಗ ಸು ಾf Hೋ ರವರು gೕQ ?ಾ1 0ನ ೆ ಾರು ಅಂಗ1 ಇಡಲು ೇ ದು@ ಅ%ಾhಚh%ಾ/ ೈಯು\ತ ನಮI ಮ ೆ ಹ Cರ ಾ JAದು ೇ ದರು. ಕೂಡjೇ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ೆದ( ಮಗ ೇಮಂತನ HೊNೆ ಅಂಕಣಕಣಕ ಾಮ ಾ ಾಯಣ Hೋ ಮ ೆ ಹ Cರ ೋದರು, ಸು?ಾರು ಅದ ಗಂ ೆ kಟು$ %ಾlಾP ೇHಾ( ೊಂ ೆ ಬಂದರು. ಾ ೆ ಅಂತ ^ಾರ ?ಾ1 ೇ ಾಗ ಸು ಾ Hೋ ೋ ಮಗ ೆ 0ನ ೆ ಾರು ಅಂಗ1 ?ಾಡ°èPÉÌ ೇ ದು@ ಅದು ೇವ ಾRನದ Hಾಗ ಕೂಡjೇ Nೆ ೆಯ ೇಕು ೆಲಸ ೆ* ಬರ ೇ ೇ ೆ ವhವ ಾರ ?ಾಡಲು ೋಗು C @ ಾ 0ೕನು 0ನ7 ೆಂಡ ಮಕ*ಳB ನಮI ೇವ ಾRನದ°è §Aದು ೆಲಸ ?ಾ1 ಎಂದು ದೂ1 ಕ Yದ ಎಂದು ನನ7 ಹ Cರ -8- NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR ೇ ದರು. ಅಂ 0ಂದ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ತುಂ ಾ ೇHಾರು ?ಾ1 ೊಂಡು ೆಲಸ ೆ* ೋಗ ೇ ಮ ೆಯjೆ>ೕ ಇದ@ರು. )ನ7Nೆ ೆ ಒಳ ಾ/ದ@(ಂದ ೇಳಲು ಬಂದ ನನ7 ತಮI ಸ ೕಶ ಾಗೂ ಅ C ೆ ೇ© ರವ( ೆ ತನ7 ?ಾನYಕ ೋವನು7 ೇ ಅಳB Cದರ @ ು. ಾಂಕ 29/05/2016 ರಂದು ಾ ಮ ೆಯ2> ಎಲ>ರೂ ಮಲ/ ಾ@ಗ ಮುಂHಾ ೆ ಸು?ಾರು 04-30 ಕ ಸಮಯದ°è. ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ಒ ಾ@ಡು Cದ@ ಶಬ@ ೇ ತು. ಅವರ ಾಯ2> ಷದ %ಾಸ ೆ ಬರು CತುC. ಕೂಡjೇ ಅಕ* ಪಕ*ದವ( ೆ ^ಾರ Y ಾಗ ಕೂಡjೇ ೊರ ಾಡು ೇವ ಾRನದ ಆಂಬುjೆQm %ಾಹನದ2>, ಕಳಸ ಸ ಾ ( ಆಸnNೆ ೆ V)Nೆm ೆ ತಂದು ೇ(Yದು@ %ೈದhರು V)Nೆm ೆ ತಂದು ೇ(Yದು@ %ೈದhರು V)Nೆm 0ೕಡುವ ಸಮಯದ2> ಸು?ಾರು 05-30 ರ ಸಮಯದ2>, V)Nೆm ಪಲ ಾ( ಾಗ ೇ ನನ7 ಗಂಡ ಮೃತಪ#$ರುNಾC ೆ, ನನ7 ಗಂಡ0 ೆ ಸು ಾf Hೋ ರವರು gೕQ ಮೂಲಕ ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ ಹ Cರ ಬರಲು ೇ ೋ ಾಗ ಅ%ಾhಚh%ಾ/ ¨ÉÊದು ಅಂಗ1 ಮ ೆ Nೆ ೆಯುವಂNೆ ಾಗೂ ೇವ ಾRನದ ೆಲಸ ೆ* ಬರಲು ೆದ( ೆ ಾ)ದ@(ಂದ pಗು¥Éì, ೊಂಡು ಾವe ೋ ಷ ೇವ ೆ ?ಾ1 ಮೃತಪ#$ರುNಾC ೆ, ನನ7 ಗಂಡನ ಾ ೆ ಸು ಾf Hೋ ರವ ೇ ಾರಣ ಾ/ದು@ ಅವರ Gೕjೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೈ ೊ¼Àîಲು ೋ( ಾ@/ರುvÉÛ."
The police conduct investigation and file a 'B' report. 'B' report is contested. The concerned Court closes the proceedings on acceptance of the 'B' report. The order accepting the 'B' report reads as follows:
"Sri.RB advocate for seeking no objection for renewal of applicant/accused filed application passport bearing No. U9741590 (Old No. BN2073285121521 belonging to Passport, T1399371) the accused/applicant file for further application the period from 04-04-2022. In the present contended that even on the directions applicant has issued by this court, the passport authority his not renewed the passport belonging to the applicant. On these grounds, the applicant seeks for necessary orders.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR Heard, perused the materials on record.
On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that this court by its order dated:28-01-2021 has passed an order expressing its no objections for renewal of the passport belonging into the applicant, for the period of one year. Further on 21-12-2021, this court has further ordered that there is no objection to renew the passport of the applicant for further period from 04-04-2022. Thus it is seen that the order dated:21-12-2021 passed by this court is not conditional but absolute, expressing no objection for renewal of the passport belonging to applicant for further period therefrom. Hence, this court considered its necessary to pass the following;
ORDER The application filed by the applicant/accused is hereby allowed.
This court has no objection to renew the Passport bearing No.U9741590 (Old Passport, T1399371) file No. BN2073285121521, without there being any influence of the previous orders passed by this court.
Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity to the complainant she has not filed any objection to the "B"
report. Hence, "B" report is accepted."
This is called in question by the complainant before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court remits the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court by the following order:
"8. Point No.1: This is the revision under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of accepting B-summary report by the trial Court.
9. As per records, petitioner is the complainant - wife of the deceased. According to her allegation, because of overt -act of respondent no.1, her husband committed suicide. Based on the complaint of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner, case was registered in Crime No: 71/2016. After investigation, respondent no.2 filed B-summary report.
10. The trial court has accepted the B-summary report on 10.11.2022 on the ground that complainant has not filed any objection to B-summary report.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that after submitting B-Summary report, the petitioner/complainant filed objections on 4.6.2019. However, the trial Court has not perused the entire records, accepted B-Summary report by mentioning that no objection has been filed by the petitioner. Why the delay was caused is to be seen. Prays for dismissal of the petition.
12. The learned P.P submits that suitable order may be passed.
13. This is the petition filed by the petitioner/complainant challenging the order of the trial Court dt: 10.11.2022. The trial Court has passed the said order by accepting the B-summary report. It is apparent on record that the trial court accepted B-summary report on the ground that petitioner/complainant has not filed objections.
14. Firstly the objection by the complainant is found on record. It was filed on 4.6.2019. The trial Court might have lost the sight of the same.
15. in the absence of the Secondly, even objection/protest application by the complainant, the learned Magistrate shall have to examine the contents of B- summary report to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and whether materials available in the B-summary report make out cognizable case against the accused and whether it is sufficient to take cognizance and issue process by recording its opinion under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C.
16. In the instant case, the trial Court has gone out of sight of the objection filed by the complainant and
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR also not applied its mind about the contents of B- summary to form its opinion.
17. Of-course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka before predecessor of learned Presiding Officer, regarding procedure to be followed when the B-report is filed by the Police. It is apparent on record that the trial Court has not followed the procedure laid down under the law when B-report is filed as discussed above. Merely because the matter is of 2016, the petition cannot be dismissed. The period for filing of petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. is within 90 days. There is no delay. It is in time. The order of the trial Court is erroneous, improper and illegal, which needs to be set aside. Hence, I hold Point No.1 in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The revision petition under Sec.397 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed.
The order dt: 10.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere accepting the B- Summary Report is hereby set aside.
Directed the trial Court to pass appropriate order by following the procedure laid down under law and to dispose of the matter as early as possible, as it is of the year 2016."
The issue now would be whether the concerned Court must be permitted to hear the complainant and pass necessary orders. The complainant had intermittently remained absent before the concerned Court, here as well. The complainant though served 18 months ago has remained absent. Therefore,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR whether the crime could be registered at all or proceeded further need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Apex Court qua offence under Section 306 of the IPC has elucidated the law in a plethora of judgments, three of which, I deem it appropriate to quote.
9. The Apex Court is the case of KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
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-1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 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 Chhattisgarh, a three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger uttered-'You are 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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 Police 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 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
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
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.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR
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.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The Apex Court in the case of ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20:
"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 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
[underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis]
14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, wherein it was held so:
"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."
15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh was a case of elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the boy, later acquitted on the girl's testimony in his favour. The boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. While upholding the conviction entered into by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of the words 'abetment' and 'instigate':
"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
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.
44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark."
Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised while also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village setting, also belonging to the poor strata of society, was threatened and teased constantly, resulting in her resort to the extreme step. The accused would have known that his acts would lead to the drastic consequence.
16. Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal also held:
"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."
17. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan emphasised the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. Looking at Section 306, it was held so:
"... 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."
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) spoke on the suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which were complex and multifaceted (sic). It was held that:
"Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."
19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat was a case in which the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he was still alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note in which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having driven him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."
21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. The Apex Court in the case of YADWINDER SINGH ALIAS SUNNY v. STATE OF PUNJAB3, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. By now the position of law insofar as abetment of suicide is concerned is well settled. Even if we accept the entire case put up by the prosecution as it is without adding anything or subtracting, we are of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are borne out.
16. This Court in the case of "Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh", 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:--
"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 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2332
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 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.
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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (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 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, 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 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, 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 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
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR 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."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC 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. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.
18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR If the law as laid down by the Apex Court is considered qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the death has happened 19 days after the hurling of abuse of one world 'Boli Maga', this in the opinion of the Court would not amount to instigation, goading or proximity, as none of the ingredients are necessary under Section 107 of the IPC is even present to its semblance in the case of hand. Therefore, the Revisional Court was right in remitting the matter to the hands of the concerned Court for passing appropriate orders on the 'B' report need not be considered, as the very registration of crime runs foul of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court. In the event further investigation even is permitted in the case at hand or remitting of the matter to the hands of the concerned Court is affirmed, it will be putting this petitioner to the rigmarole procedure for an eventual acquittal as in the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, to save the proceeding from becoming an abuse of the process of law and resulting in miscarriage of justice. I deem it appropriate to excise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the crime against the petitioner.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6444 WP No. 15571 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 04.03.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.195/2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru stands quashed.
(iii) The investigation in crime No.71/2016 pending before the Additional City Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Mudigere stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47