Karnataka High Court
Smt Shwetha @ Ananya vs State By Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10147
CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHWETHA @ ANANYA
W/O LATE HARISH K
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.74, 12TH CROSS
NEAR SAROJA SCHOOL
ULLALA MAIN ROAD
KEGERI, BENGALURU-560 110
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO.18, OLD NO.16,
AKHILANDESHWARI NILAYA
10TH CRO, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU CITY-560 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHU O.K., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed by B SRI. MADESH V.M., ADVOCATE)
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE BY KARNATAKA
BYJIGANI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ASHOK K
S/O KUMAR N
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, OLD NO.16
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10147
CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024
AKHILANDESHWARI NILAYA
10TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN
BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE
NEAR APOLLO PHARMACY
BENGALURU-560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.26881/2023
REGISTERED BY THE JIGANI POLICE STATION PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/US 306 OF IPC, 1860 MARKED
AT ANNEXURE A AND D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner (accused), who is facing charges for offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased, Harish, and the mother of the deceased children, and that her marriage was solemnized in 2007. It is further contended that the accused repeatedly insisted that the deceased provide a separate matrimonial home and demanded a luxurious lifestyle. On 27 April 2023, the deceased took the petitioner (his wife) and their children on vacation and returned on 1 May 2023. Thereafter, the deceased would bring the children to the residence of CW1, leave them there until late at night, and then take them -3- NC: 2025:KHC:10147 CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024 back to his home. On 7 May 2023, the children were taken to and left at their grandparents' house. At about 8:00 p.m., the petitioner called the complainant's mother and spoke with her over the phone.
3. The complainant's sister then asked the deceased why they were creating a nuisance. The deceased replied that the petitioner was involved in relationships with others and had deceived him, which greatly perturbed him. On 8 May 2023, at about 2:59 p.m., the deceased (Harish) sent a message to his friend Jabastin, providing details of the balance amount to be collected from others and stating that this amount, along with the LIC bond amount, should be given to the petitioner. Jabastin subsequently informed the complainant that there was a message indicating that Harish would commit suicide. On 9 May 2023, Jabastin and his friend Naveen discovered that Harish was residing in Nirman Layout of Koppa village. They went to the house and, upon looking through a window, observed that the deceased (Harish) and his two children had committed suicide by hanging.
4. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Although the de facto complainant was served with notice, he chose not to appear in person or through counsel, and the matter is being considered ex parte.
6. In the instant case, the deceased (Harish) had sent a message to his friend and others stating that the LIC money to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:10147 CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024 which he was entitled should be given to the petitioner (accused). There is no allegation that the petitioner incited the deceased or his children to commit suicide. Apart from the allegation that she insisted the deceased provide a separate matrimonial home and lead a luxurious life, there is no other allegation that the petitioner either incited or abetted the deceased or his children to commit suicide.
7. A coordinate Bench of 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.
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.
8. 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.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:10147 CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024
9. 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 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".
10. Therefore, based on the charge sheet a4nd the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the essential ingredients for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC are absent.
11. 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:10147 CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024 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".
12. 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.
(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.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:10147 CRL.P No. 5242 of 2024 (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.
13. In the instance, there are no essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, and in such circumstances , the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Impugned proceedings initiated in C.C No.26881/2023 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109