Karnataka High Court
Shri Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 30.01.2025
Pronounced on : 07.03.2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12475 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI RAVI
S/O SHIVAMARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANJANAPURA VILLAGE
THUNGANI POST
KASABA HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2 . SMT. PAVITHRA
W/O RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KODIPURA VILLAGE,
KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SADHANA S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHRI. VEERABHADRE GOWDA
S/O LATE EAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO. 17,
KALABYRAVESWARA NILAYA,
SHARADA NAGARA,
7TH PHASE, RAMANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 562 119.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., AND 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.95/2023
DATED 10.08.2023, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 AND 107 OF
IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANAKAPURA; 2.QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
BEARING NO.64/2023 DATED 04.09.2023 FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
KANAKAPURA FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They are at the doors of
this Court, calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.5011 of 2024
being tried for offences punishable under Section 306 and 34 of the
IPC.
2. Heard Smt. Sadhana S. Desai, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Ranganath Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
Accused Nos.1 and 2, present petitioners are husband and
wife. The 1st petitioner is a farmer and the 2nd petitioner is said to
be homemaker. The husband and wife stand accused of
driving/abetting one Eregowda, the complainant's father to the
tragic end of self destruction - suicide. A complaint comes to be
registered by the 2nd respondent alleging that on 10-08-2023 the
father of the complainant commits suicide. The commission of
4
suicide is complained of on 10-08-2023 itself. The complaint then
becomes a crime in Crime No.95 of 2023 against these two
petitioners, arraigning them as accused 1 and 2. The Police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet. The concerned Court registers
C.C.No.1308 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 306
and 34 of the IPC. Since the offence was punishable under Section
306, the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, which is now
being tried as S.C.No.5011 of 2024. The continuation of trial in the
aforesaid Sessions Case is what has driven the petitioners to this
Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Smt Sadhana S Desai would vehemently contend that the roots of
the allegation lie on a financial dispute stemming from the
execution of a sale deed, on a fact that the father of the
complainant had not consented to affix his signature on the sale
deed and he was convinced when he was offered ₹50,000/-. It is
the case of the complainant that accused Nos.1 and 2 later started
demanding the amount of ₹50,000/- and when it was not returned,
both the accused forcibly took away 4 goats belonging to the father
5
of the complainant. This is what has driven the father of the
complainant to commit suicide, is the crux of the complaint. The
learned counsel would contend that there is legal and valid
transaction of sale of the property belonging to the father of the
complainant to the hands of accused 1 and 2. The entire
consideration is paid after due diligence. The family members of the
complainant have also raised a dispute on the said sale in
O.S.No.860 of 2023. The said dispute is pending adjudication
before the concerned Court. Therefore, the learned counsel would
submit that there is no warrant for these petitioners to have taken
away 4 goats of the complainant's father and the complainant's
father committing suicide on the said incident of taking away of 4
goats. The learned counsel would further submit that none of the
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, for it to become an offence
under Section 306 of the IPC are even present in the case at hand
and seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent after entering
appearance, appeared once and sought adjournment on
10-12-2024. This Court passed the following order on the said date:
6
"At the request of learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - complainant, list this matter on 19.12.2024, in the
fresh matters list.
Interim order granted earlier, is extended till the next
date of hearing.
Objections, if any, by then."
Again, the matter was adjourned on 19-12-2024 to 09-01-2025.
On 09-01-2025 the Court passed the following:
"Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Sadhana
Desai.
There is no impediment on behalf of the second
respondent-complainant.
List this mater on 23.01.2025 awaiting the appearance of
Sri Ranganath Reddy.
Interim order subsisting shall continue till the next date of
hearing."
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent was not present. On
23-01-2025 this Court passed the following order:
"List the matter on 30.01.2025.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Sadhana
S. Desai.
This Court on 9/1/2025 had passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
Smt.Sadhana Desai.
7
There is no impediment on behalf of the second
respondent-complainant.
List this matter on 23.01.2025 awaiting the
appearance of Sri Ranganath Reddy.
Interim order subsisting shall continue till the next
date of hearing."
The matter was adjourned to today, awaiting the
appearance of the counsel for the complainant, who was on that
day absent.
Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the
complainant, either through V.C. or physically.
The issue in the lis revolves around abetment to suicide.
The issue stands answered by plethora of judgments rendered
by the Apex Court, which are noted in the order dated
20.11.2024. Subsequent to the said order, the Apex Court has
again reiterated that abetment to suicide will have to meet the
ingredients of Section 107 in 2025 SSC OnLine SC 107 and
2025 SSC OnLine SC 120. Therefore, as a last chance,
awaiting the appearance of the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent-component, list this matter on 30.01.2025 for
further hearing.
It is made clear that in the event the counsel for the 2nd
respondent would not be present, the orders shall be passed
hearing the counsel for the petitioner Smt Sadhna Desai."
Even on the aforesaid day, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent was not present. This Court had passed the order that
in the event the counsel for the 2nd respondent would not be
present, orders would be passed on hearing the counsel for the
petitioners. The matter was adjourned to 30-01-2025. Even on
8
30-01-2025 there was no representation on behalf of the counsel
for the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor was heard in the matter.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
vehemently refute the submissions contending that the case is
being tried by the Court of Sessions on the charge sheet being filed
and the matter committed to the Court of Sessions. He would
contend that the transaction between the parties could be there. It
may be pending before the civil Court in O.S.No.860 of 2023.
Merely because proceedings are pending, it cannot be said that
there is no abetment to suicide by the petitioners who are said to
have given ₹50,000/- at the time of signature on the sale deed and
later went on asking ₹50,000/- back. Unable to bear mental
harassment and left with no choice, the father of the complainant
had committed suicide. Therefore, there is a clear case of coxing or
goading which would become abetment to suicide. He would
submit that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown
trial.
9
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The transaction between the father of the complainant and
the petitioners has happened on 05-07-2023. It is the averment in
the complaint that at the time of registration of sale deed ₹50,000/-
was paid to the father of the complainant. This was for affixing his
signature on the sale deed. The petitioners, after the sale, are
alleged to have demanded the sum of ₹50,000/- that was given to
the father of the complainant and the allegation is that when the
said amount was not received by them, they forcibly took away 4
goats of the father of the complainant. Based upon the said
incident, the father of the complainant commits suicide on 10-08-
2023. The complaint then emerges from the 2nd respondent on the
very day. Since the entire issue has triggered from the complaint, I
deem it appropriate to notice gist of the complaint as found in
column No.10 of the FIR. It reads as follows;
"10. ಪ xÀಮ ವತ ಾನ ವರ ಯ ವರಗಳ
10
ಾಂಕ: 10.08.2023 ರಂದು ಾ 11.30 ಗಂ ೆ ೆ !ಾ "ಾ#ೆ ೆ $ಾಜ ಾ& 'ೕ)ದ
ದೂ+ನ ,ಾ ಾಂಶ.ೇ ೆಂದ ೆ, ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ8, 9ಾ: ;ವಮ/ ರವ+ ೆ ಾವ<
ಒಟು? ಇಬBರು ಮಕ6ಳ , Dದಲ ೇ ;ವರತF, ಎರಡ ೇ ಾನು ಆ&ರು9ೆIೕ ೆ, ಾನು ಈ ೆJ ಸು ಾರು 15
ವಷ ಗMಂದ NೆಂಗಳO+ನPQ Rೆಲಸ ಾ)Rೊಂಡು .ಾಸ.ಾ&ರು9ೆIೕ ೆ. ಊ+ನPQ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ 9ಾ:
ಮತುI ನನF ಅಕ6ನ ಮಗ PUV, 13 ವಷ .ಾಸ.ಾ&ರು9ಾI ೆ.
ನಮ/ 9ಾತ WೇX ೕರಭ0ೆ ೕ ೌಡ ರವ+ ೆ ಹು[?ದವರು 1 ೇ ;ವ ೇ ೌಡ, 2 ೇ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ
ಈ ೇ ೌಡ, 3 ೇ ;ವಮ/ 4 ೇ WೇX ಮು';ವ ಆ&ರು9ಾI ೆ. ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆಯ 0ೊಡ\ಪ] ;ವ ೇ ೌಡ @
ಕ+ೕ ೌಡ ರವರ Dದಲ ೇ $ೆಂಡ 5QÌÃರಮ/ ರವರ ಮಗ ;ವಮ+ೕ ೌಡ ಈತನ ಮಗ ರ
ಎಂಬುವನು ನಮ/ 9ಾತ ೕರಭ0ೆ ೕ ೌಡ ಮತುI 5ಕ6 9ಾತ 5^6ೕ ೇ ೌಡ ರವರ _ಾಗRೆ6 ಬಂ ದ`
ಆಲ ಾಥ ಾ ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ.69 ರPQನ 6-12 ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ4ೕ'ನ .ಾbಜbವನುF ಾನು
ಬ ೆಹ+cRೊಡು9ೆIೕ ೆಂದು $ೇM ಇದರ ಬದWಾ& ನನ ೆ 'ೕವ< ಒಂದು ಎಕ ೆ ಜ4ೕನನುF dಟು?Rೊ)
ಎಂದು ಾ ಮ¸ÀÜರ ಮುಂ0ೆ $ಾಗೂ ಾbಯ¸ÀÜರ ಮುಂ0ೆ ಾತ ಾ) ಒ ]Rೊಂ)ರು9ಾI ೆ. ನಮ/ 0ೊಡ\ಪ]
;ವ ೇ ೌಡ ರವರು ಅವ+ ೆ ಸಮ,ೆb ಇದ`+ಂದ ಅವರ _ಾಗRೆ6 ಬಂ ದ` ಜ4ೕನನುF Nೇ ೆಯವ+ ೆ
ಾ ಾಟ ಾ)0ಾಗ ಅದRೆ6 ಅಡ\ ಾಗಲು $ಾ^ 9ಾ ೇ 8 ಲe ರೂಗM ೆ ಕ ಯRೆ6 9ೆ ೆದುRೊಂಡು
+fಸ?g ಾಡುವ ಸಮಯದPQ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಸh $ಾಕ0ೇ ಇದ` ಸಮಯPQ ರ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆiಂ ೆ
ಜಗಳ ಾ) ಮಧb¸ÀÜರ ಾ ನಂ9ೆ ರ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ೆ 50,000/- ರೂಗಳನುF 'ೕ)ರು9ಾI ೆ. +fಸ?g
ಾ)cRೊಂ)ರು9ಾI ೆ. ಅಲQ0ೆ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ೆ ಮತುI ನಮ/ 0ೊಡ\ಪ]' ೆ ಜ4ೕನನುF
ಾ)cRೊಡು9ೆIೕ ೆಂದು $ೇM ತನF $ೆಸ+ ೆ ಾ)cRೊಂಡು Dೕಸ ಾ)ರು9ಾI ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆJ ಾವ<
c k ಾb!ಾಲಯದPQ Rೇಸು $ಾ^ರು9ೆIೕ.ೆ. ರ ಾ)ದ Dೕಸ ಂದ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ _ಾ+
ಮನ ೊಂದು ನನF lೊ9ೆ $ೇMRೊಂ)ದ`ರು.
gÀ« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ FvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ¥À«vÀæ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ
vÁ¬ÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ K£ÀÄ ¹UÀzÀAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ನರM ನರM ,ಾಯವ $ಾ ೆ ಾಡು9ೆIೕ ೆಂದು $ೇM ಅ.ಾbಚb.ಾ&
Nೈದು $ೋ&ದ`ರು. ಅಲQ0ೆ ಾವ< 'ನ ೆ 50,000/- ರೂ ,ಾಲ Rೊ[?ರುವ<ದು d[? ಏನು Rೊ[?ಲQ, 'ೕನು
,ಾiೕವ ೆಗೂ dಡ®è ಎಂದು $ೇM $ೋದ ೆಂದು ನಮ/ ಸಂಬಂ ಮು';ವ ರವರ $ೆಂಡ ;ಲ] ರವರು
ನನ ೆ pq ಾ) Mcದ`ರು, ರ ಮತುI ಈತನ $ೆಂಡ , ಊ+ನPQರುವ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ 9ಾ: ೆ
ಾ ಮಸrರ ಮುಂ0ೆ ಮ!ಾ 9ೆ ೆದು ಾನcಕ.ಾ& ೆಮ/ ಇಲQದಂ9ೆ ಾ)ದ`ರು. ಾಂಕ:
07.08.2023 ರಂದು ಸಂlೆ ಸು ಾರು 5.00 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದPQ ರ ಮತುI ಈತನ $ೆಂಡ ನಮ/
ಮ ೆಯ ಬM ೆ ಬಂದು ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ 9ಾ: ೆ Nಾ: ೆ ಬಂದಂ9ೆ Nೈದು ಾನು Rೊ[?ರುವ ,ಾಲRೆ6 ನಮ/
ಮ ೆಯPQದ` 4 sೕRೆಗಳನುF d5tRೊಂಡು $ೋಗು I0ಾ`ಗ ಇವರನುF ತuೆದು ರೂvಾ ಾಯ6, cದು`
ಾಯ6, $ಾಗೂ ಇತರರು ತuೆದು ಇ¯Éèà ಏ ಾದರೂ ೕ ಾ ನ ಾ)RೊMw. ಸುಮ/ ೆ ಈ +ೕ ಅವ+ ೆ
ಅವ ಾನ ಾಡNೇ) ಎಂದು $ೇMದರೂ ರ ಮತುI ಈತನ $ೆಂಡ ಪ ತ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ೆ ಅವನು
11
ಸತI ೆ ನಮ ೇನು ಆಗNೇಕು ಾವ< ಎWಾQ, d& ಾ)Rೊಂ)0ೆ`ೕ.ೆ ಎಂದು $ೇM $ೋದ xಾರವನುF
ನಮ/ 9ಾ: ನನ ೆ Mc 'ಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಮನcy ೆ Nೇಸರ ಾ)Rೊಂ)0ಾ` ೆ ಎಂದು Mcದರು.
ಈ ನ ಾಂಕ: 10.08.2023 ರಂದು ಸಂlೆ 5.00 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದPQ, ನಮ/ ಾ ಮ ಂದ
ನನF ,ೆFೕhತ ರ $ಾಗೂ ಇತರರು ನನ ೆ pೕq ಾ) 'ಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ ರವರು ಮ ೆಯ
vಾbq ೆ ಹಗJ ಂದ ೇಣು $ಾ^Rೊಂಡು ಸ Iರು9ಾI ೆಂದು Mcದರು ನಂತರ ಾನು NೆಂಗಳO+'ಂದ
ನಮ/ ಾ ಮRೆ6 ಬಂದು ನಮ/ 0ೊಡ\ಪ] ;ವ ೇ ೌಡ, ನಮ/ 9ಾ: ರವರನುF xಾ+c0ಾಗ ನಮ/
9ಾ: ಹಸುವನುF sೕ:ಸಲು $ೊಲದ ಬM ೆ $ೋ&ದ`ರು. ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಮ ೆಯPQ ಇದ`ರು. ನಮ/ ಅಕ6ನ
ಮಗ PUV ಸೂ6P ೆ $ೋ&ದ`ವನು ಸಂlೆ ಸು ಾರು 4.45 ಗಂ ೆ ೆ ಸೂ6P'ಂದ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂ0ಾಗ ನಮ/
ತಂ0ೆ ¥sÁå£ÉÎ, ೇಣು $ಾ^Rೊಂ)ರುವ<ದನುF ೋ) ^ರು5Rೊಂuಾಗ ನಮ/ zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À ಮಗ ;ವಪ]
$ಾಗೂ ಈತನ ಮಗ ^ೕ $ಾಗೂ ಾ ಮದವರು ಬಂದು ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ೇಣು $ಾ^Rೊಂ)ದ` ಹಗJವನುF
Rೊಯು` Rೆಳ&Mc ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಂ0ೆ ಪಡ,ಾWೆಯ Nೇz sೕWೆ ಮಲ&cದರು ಎಂದು Mcದರು.
ರ Dೕಸ ಂದ ಜ4ೕನನುF ತನF $ೆಸ+ ೆ ಾ)cRೊಂ)ದ`+ಂದ $ಾಗೂ ರ ಮತುI ಈತನ
$ೆಂಡ ಪ ತ ರವರು ಾ ಮದPQ, ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ8 ರವ+ ೆ Nಾ: ೆ ಬಂದಂ9ೆ
ಅ.ಾಚb.ಾ& Nೈದು ಾ ಮದPQ ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ&ದ` ಾನ ಮ!ಾ 0ೆಯನುF 9ೆ ೆದು ನಮ/ ಮ ೆಯ ಬM
ಬಂದು 50,000/- ರೂ ,ಾಲRಾ6& 04 sೕRೆಗಳನುF ಎ{ೆದುRೊಂಡು $ೋಗು9ೆIೕ.ೆಂದು $ೇM ಮ ೆ:ಂದ
h)ದುRೊಂಡು $ೋ&, 'ೕನು ಎPQ!ಾದರೂ $ೋ& ,ಾ: ಎಂದು ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ೆ ಾನcಕ.ಾ& ಕುUÀÄÎ
ವಂ9ೆ ಾ) ನಮ/ ತಂ0ೆ ಆತ/ಹ9ೆb ಾ)Rೊಳwವಂ9ೆ ಾ)ದ ರ ಮತುI ಈತನ $ೆಂಡ ಪ ತ
ರವರ ರುದ| Rಾನೂನು +ೕ ಕ ಮ ಜರು&ಸNೇRೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ/°è PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ."
The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads
as follows:
"17. Rೇcನ ಸಂ}ಪI ,ಾ ಾಂಶ
ಾಂಕ: 10.08.2023 ರಂದು ಸಂlೆ ಸು ಾರು 4.45 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದPQ, ಾನ ಘನ
ಾb!ಾಲಯದ .ಾb I ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ Rೋ)ಹMw, pPೕ• "ಾ#ಾ ಸರಹದು` ಕನಕಪ<ರ 9ಾಲೂQಕು,
Rೋ)ಹMw, $ೋಬM, ಈ ೇ ೌಡನ0ೊ)\ ಾ ಮದ ಮೃತ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ ರವರು ತಮ/
.ಾಸದ ಮ ೆಯPQ ಈ 0ೋ•ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ[? ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರPQ ನಮೂ cರುವ ಎ1 ಮತುI ಎ2
ಆ ೋ ಗಳ ಮೃತ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ8, ರವ+ ೆ ಎ1 ರವರು ಜ4ೕನನುF ತಮ/ $ೆಸ+ ೆ
12
ಾ)cRೊಡು9ೆIೕ ೆಂದು $ೇM ಾ)cRೊಡ0ೆ 9ೊಂದ ೆ 'ೕ) $ಾಗೂ ಎ1 ಮತುI ಎ2 ರವರು ಹಣವನುF
,ಾಲ.ಾ& 'ೕ)0ೆ`ಂದು $ೇM ಾಂಕ: 07.08.2023 ರಂದು ಸಂlೆ ಸು ಾರು 05.00 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದPQ
ಮೃತ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ8. ರವರ ಮ ೆ ಬM ಬಂದು ಅ.ಾbಚb ಶಬ`ಗMಂದ Nೈದು ಗWಾ ೆ ಾ)
'ೕನು 4ೕ,ೆ $ೊತುIRೊಂಡು $ೇ ೆ ಬದು^ `ೕ!ಾ ,ಾ: ಎಂದು ಮ ೆಯ ಬM ಇದ` 04 sೕRೆಗಳನುF
h)ದುRೊಂಡು $ೋ& ಾ ಮದPQ ಾನ ಮ!ಾ 0ೆ ಕ{ೆ ದ`+ಂದ ಮೃತ ಈ ೇ ೌಡ @ 4ೕ,ೆ 5ಕ6ಣ8
ರವರು ಾನcಕ.ಾ& ಎ1 ಮತುI ಎ2 ರವರುಗಳ ಆ)ದ ಾತುಗMಂದ ಮನ ೊಂದು ತಮ/ .ಾಸದ
ಮ ೆಯ $ಾk ನPQzÀÝ ‚ಾbq ೆ ಹಗJ ಂದ ೇಣು $ಾ^Rೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪ[?ರು9ಾI ೆ. ಇವರ ,ಾ ೆ ಎ1
ಮತುI ಎ2 ರವರು ಎಸ&ದ ಅಪ ಾಧವ< Rಾರಣ ಾ&ವ<ದು ,ಾ}0ಾರರುಗಳ $ೇMRೆಗMಂದ ಮತುI
ತ'ƒೆ:ಂದ ಧೃಢಪ[?ರುತI0ೆ."
The summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the
petitioners on 07-08-2023 had admittedly abused the father of the
complainant and in lieu of ₹50,000/- that was paid to the father of
the complainant, they took away 4 goats by hurling the words "go
and die". Therefore, two circumstances the complaint narrates or
the summary of the charge sheet would depict are that the
petitioners have uttered the words "go and die" against the father
of the complainant and allegedly took away 4 goats towards
repayment of ₹50,000/-. Whether the words spoken "go and die"
would amount to an offence for abetment to suicide is what is
required to be considered. Uttering of words "go and die" whether
would amount to an abetment under Section 107 of the IPC for it to
become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to
13
suicide need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the
matter.
9. Section 306 of the IPC which deals with abetment to
suicide reads as follows:
"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."
Section 306 directs that whoever abets the commission of suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10
years. Therefore, the soul of Section 306 is abetment. What is
abetment is found in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC
reads as follows:
"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
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
14
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 107 clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids
any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section
306, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 is
intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, what is required is
intentional mindset of the accused which would be mens rea. It
must be a positive act of the accused to instigate commission of
suicide.
10. The Apex Court has considered interpretation of the
aforesaid provision qua the abuse "go and die". The Apex Court, in
the case of SWAMY PRAHALADDAS v. STATE OF M.P.1, has held
as follows:
1
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
15
".... .... ....
2. The impugned order of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh is in confirmation of the order of the Court of Session,
whereby, the appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial
for offence under Section 306 IPC. The said order has been
passed in this background:
Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is
alleged to have had two paramours, one was the
deceased and the other is the appellant. It is alleged that
there was sexual jealousy between the two. The
deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges
that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her
heart was with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6-
1992, all the three had a quarrel while sharing their
morning tea. During that course, the appellant is said to
have remarked for the deceased to go and die. The
prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went
home in a dejected mood, whereafter he committed
suicide. The suicide has been termed as the direct cause
for the treatment meted out to the deceased by the
appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone stands
committed to the Court of Session to face trial because of
her preferential treatment to the appellant.
3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court
thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an
accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We
think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of
Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In
the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to
come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the
appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on
the assumption that these words would be carried out in
all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to
weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately
ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the
deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by
16
the appellant. For these reasons, the error is apparent
requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The orders of the High Court and that of the Court of
Session are thus upset. The appellant need not face the
charge."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance where after a
quarrel the accused is said to have remarked to the deceased to go
and die. The Apex Court holds that mere utterance of the kind will
not amount to suicide. The Apex Court in the case of SANJU v.
STATE OF M.P.2 was also considering a case where the accused in
the fit of anger uttered the words 'go and die'. The Apex Court
holds as follows:
".... .... ....
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the
suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that
had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that the
appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly
told the deceased "to go and die". For this, courts relied
on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the
deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when reportedly
the deceased, after coming back from the house of the
appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him
and abused him with filthy words. The statement of
Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is
annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going
through the statement, we find that he has not stated
2
(2002) 5 SCC 371
17
that the deceased had told him that the appellant had
asked him "to go and die". Even if we accept the
prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased
"to go and die", that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It
is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel
or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be
uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion.
Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been
told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a
quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998.
Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive
language seriously, he had enough time in between to
think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the abusive language, which had been used by the
appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide.
Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the
abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The
fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would
itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the
quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the
appellant had used the abusive language and also told the
deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the
courts below.
... ... ...
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show
that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One
plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any
work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as
revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He
was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly
suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a
sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the
deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the
investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always
indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also
stated that on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an
inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of
the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that
18
the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had
taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased came back
to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that
the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the
quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998. Viewed from
the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are
clearly of the view that the ingredients of "abetment" are
totally absent in the instant case for an offence under
Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that
the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It
is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one
to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the
deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected
with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-7-1998 where the
appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking
the totality of materials on record and facts and
circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead
to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and
he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court then considers the purport of abetment and holds
that it involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person to suicide. The Apex Court in the case
of S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN3 has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
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
3
(2010)12 SCC 190
19
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.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day
life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the
other. Different people behave differently in the same
situation."
(Emphasis supplied)
A little later, in the case of AMALENDU PAL v. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL4 the Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. 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.
4
(2010) 1 SCC 707
20
13. 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.
14. The expression "abetment" has been defined
under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide
when a person instigates any person to do that thing as
stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in
clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section
109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed
pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the
offender is to be punished with the punishment provided
for the original offence. Learned counsel for the
respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that
it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107
IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
A decade later, the Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH
v. STATE OF PUNJAB5 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. Section 107 IPC defines "abetment" and in this case,
the following part of the section will bear consideration:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the
doing of a thing, who--
5
(2020) 10 SCC 200
21
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or
***
Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing."
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that
whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to
have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To
prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107
IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be
visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or show that
the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that
state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The
ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly
present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the trial
court as well as the High Court never examined whether
the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to
have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial
court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman
with two young kids might have committed suicide possibly
because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial
house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case.
Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy
because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step
on his account."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH6 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
6
2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
22
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we
have perused the impugned order [Kanchan Sharma v. State of
U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6917] and other material placed on
record. Except the self-serving statements of the complainant
and other witnesses stating that the deceased was in love with
the appellant, there is no other material to show that the
appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From
the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of
incident on 4-5-2018 the deceased went to the house of the
appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small
bottle which he had carried in his pocket. Merely because he
consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that
itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the
deceased.
9. "Abetment" involves mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one
can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. To
proceed against any person for the offence under Section
306IPC it 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. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant
was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is
absolutely no material to allege that the appellant abetted for
suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306IPC.
11. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald
statement that the appellant and other family members abused
the deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on
record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged
offence also.
12. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009)
16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal
with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has
opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or
23
encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the
judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern
is different from the other and each person has his own idea of
self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that
it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with
the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
896] in order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306IPC this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-
13)
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.
It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. 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 306IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306IPC 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 306IPC.""
(Emphasis supplied)
24
The Apex Court, later, in the case of DAXABEN v. STATE OF
GUJARAT7 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. Section 306 of the IPC reads:
"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."
9. As argued by Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondents, what is required to
constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306
of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either
direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of
the offence of suicide."
(Emphasis supplied)
Further, in the case of KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA8, the
Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
3. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
earlier residing in the house of the deceased as a tenant though
on the date of the incident he was residing elsewhere as the
term of the lease agreement had expired. On 05.07.2000 at
about 09:00 AM, the deceased was returning home after
dropping the children of her sister in the school. When she had
reached near the Canara Bank, the appellant was waiting there
and teased her to marry him. The deceased refused to respond.
Appellant threatened her that if she did not agree to marry him,
he would destroy the family of her sisters, outrage their
modesty and would kill them. After she reached home, she
7
2022 SCC OnLine SC 936
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 216
25
informed her sisters about the above incident over telephone.
Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house. The neighbours
saw through the window of the house the deceased lying on the
floor in a painful condition. They got the door of the house
opened. The deceased was suffering from pain due to
consumption of poison. In the meanwhile, one of her sisters and
her husband came to the house. All of them took the deceased
to the Nirmala Devi Hospital whereafter she was shifted to the
Mission Hospital. Ultimately, she died on 06.07.2000 at 07:30
PM.
... ... ...
60. In India attempt to commit suicide is an offence
under Section 309 IPC. This section provides that
whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act
towards the commission of such offence, he shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine or with both. But once the
suicide is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then
obviously such a person would be beyond the reach of the
law; question of penalising him would not arise. In such a
case, whoever abets the commission of such suicide
would be penalised under Section 306 IPC. Section 306
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.
61. Thus, as per Section 306 of IPC, if any person
commits suicide, then 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.
62. The crucial word in Section 306 of IPC is 'abets'.
'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC
reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who-
26
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.
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 facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
63. From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is deducible
is that a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he
instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with
one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission
doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person
by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material
fact which he is otherwise 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. Similarly, it is
clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at
the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of
that act.
64. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide inasmuch as
it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M.
Mohan v. State1 went into the meaning of the word suicide and
held as under:
37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in
the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and
"cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In
27
short, a person committing suicide must commit it by
himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
65. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, this
Court delved into the meaning of the word 'instigate' or
'instigation' and held as under:
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 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.
66. Thus, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to
goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To
satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or that the
words or act should necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. Where the accused by his act or omission
or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation
that the deceased is left with no other option except to
commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word
uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
67. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State3,
this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute
'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by
'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court held as follows:
28
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage
the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging
forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a
thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action
or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to
persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to
move more quickly and or in a particular direction,
especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a
person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge
forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
68. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that
the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person,
the following has to be established:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even
be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or
forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission
or conduct to make the deceased move forward more
quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in
the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens
rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal4, this Court after referring to some of the previous
decisions held that it has been the consistent view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether
the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to
her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.
29
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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
Thereafter, this Court held as under:
13. 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.
70. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Ude
Singh (supra).
71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana5, this Court after
referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC 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.
72. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra),
this Court observed that abetment would involve 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. Delineating the intention of the legislature
and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this
30
Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and
that this act of the accused must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
73. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State
of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal observed that the court
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case as well as the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether
the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires
to the court that the 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 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.
... ... ...
80. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh
impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind.
There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to
commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of
failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive
environment in college or hostel, particularly for students
belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness,
financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage,
acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth.
Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone
has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances
surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are
relevant."
(Emphasis supplied)
31
The Apex Court in the case of KUMAR supra considers the entire
spectrum of law and holds that human mind is an enigma. There
can be myriad reasons for a man or woman or anyone to commit or
attempt to commit suicide. Circumstances surrounding the
deceased in which he finds himself is relevant.
11. The Apex Court again in the case of NIPUN ANEJA v.
STATE OF U.P.9, has held as follows:
"16. This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed
that--
"7. ....The prosecution initiated against the appellant
would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned single
Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information
report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a
cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to
proceed against the appellant herein."
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, has defined the word
9
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091
32
'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, 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 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.""
18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the
necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail,
observed as under:--
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention
of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting
the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be
evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended
by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 IPC."
19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019)
17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under
Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular
33
crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability.
It was observed as under:--
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation
for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person
would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of
the accused which compels the person to commit suicide;
and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the
time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of
the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court
in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If
the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no
other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall
within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused
plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-
respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment
of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to
the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and
deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or
34
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be
that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of
delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required
to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased."
20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of
Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of
2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above
referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:--
"44. ...It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without their 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."
21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) 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. Further,
as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on
account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided
into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is
having sentimental ties or physical relations with the
accused and the second category would be where the
deceased is having relations with the accused in his or
her official capacity. In the case of former category
sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words
may result into immediate psychological imbalance,
consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of
charm in life and if the person is unable to control
sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to
the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation
of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister,
sister and sister and other relations of such type, where
35
sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In
the case of second category the tie is on account of
official relations, where the expectations would be to
discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law
and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In
normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
cannot be equated with the official relationship. The
reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that
relationship. The former category leaves more
expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and
large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by
law, rules, policies and regulations.
22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of
cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the
materials on record whether there is anything to indicate
even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of
the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the
courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only
after a full-fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look
into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that
such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all
depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For
example, whether the accused had the common intention under
Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged
trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards
the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the
weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in
cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things
clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself.
The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of
law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is
the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply
the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide,
which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and
appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of
the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they
decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police.
However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to
look into the matter and see that the persons against whom
allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or
they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.
36
23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High
Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have
examined the matter keeping in mind the following:
(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the
appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or
torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only
escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the
colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were
sufficient.
(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional
vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel
worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit
suicide?
(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire
consequences, such as harm to his family or severe
financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was
the only way out?
(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have
damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to
commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of
dignity."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the test that the Court should adopt in
such cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of
materials on record whether there is anything to indicate prima
facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act i.e.,
suicide. Therefore, what is necessary was mens rea. The Apex
Court further observes that the High Court should have examined
37
the case on the circumstances narrated in para-23 supra. None of
those circumstances exist in the case at hand.
12. In the subsequent judgment, the Apex Court in the case
of MAHENDRA AWASE v. STATE OF M.P.10, while considering the
entire spectrum of law has held as follows:
".... .... ....
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in
a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds
to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the
appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's
case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the
suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the
deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased
and advanced to RiteshMalakar. It could not be said that
the appellant by performing his duty of realising
outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be
said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not
be said that the appellant intended to instigate the
commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that
the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left
the deceased with no other option except to commit
suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the
10
2025 SCC OnLine SC 107
38
exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with
intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation
in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a
delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for
Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however
seem to have followed more in the breach.
Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted
to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine
cases where the threshold is met should not be spared,
the provision should not be deployed against individuals,
only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught
family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
accused and the deceased, their interactions and
conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the
deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without
anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit
suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are
sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under
Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The
trial courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the
investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter
disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against
the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under
Section 306. Hence, we discharge the appellant from
proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file
of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District,
Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said proceedings. The
appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2023
39
passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023
is set aside."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC
should not be casually registered by the Police only to assuage the
immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.
13. Yet again, the Apex Court in the case of LAXMI DAS v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL11, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready
reference:
"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."
We must read Section 306 IPC with
Section 107 IPC which defines 'Abetment'; and it reads as
below:
"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
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 120
40
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.
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 facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it
is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii)
clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the
judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of
Maharashtra1, wherein this Court has interpreted
Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate
that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement
or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person
to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to
aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial pronouncements,
we are of the view that there is no proximate link between
the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution
has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the
allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not
played any active role or any positive or direct act to
instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither
41
the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues
of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the
appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no
allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased
to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of
suicide by her husband."
10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra2, this Court has
further interpreted the offence as below:
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic
ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and
second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s).
In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it
must necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or
indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one
of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of
the IPC has to be satisfied.
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."
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that
define the act of 'instigation'. Accordingly, in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3, this Court observed:
"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 by a continued course of conduct created
42
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."
12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State
of H.P.4, wherein the Supreme Court held:
"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 the status
of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a
situation for the victim to put an end to life."
13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the
High Court and Trial Court. Even if all evidence on record,
including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken
to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the
Appellant. We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote
and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC.
There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the
deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the
unfortunate act of committing suicide.
14. It is discerned from the record that the
Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put
any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship
between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's
family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the
Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the
marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise
to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting
suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to
not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover
will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to
43
be a positive act that creates an environment where the
deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the
charge of Section 306 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, has considered this
very issue and elucidating what should be the ingredients in an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC, has clearly held that
utterance of the words "go and die" in the absence of mens rea, in
the action of the accused, would all lead to obliteration of the
proceedings against the accused.
14. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are noticed on
the principle elucidated by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted
judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is, the crime being
loosely laid against these petitioners only to assuage the distress of
the family of the deceased. The financial transaction between the
deceased and the petitioners is a matter of record. 4 goats being
taken away is the allegation. When they were taken away, did they
even lead to the ultimate act of commission of suicide is no where
narrated either in the complaint or in the summary of the charge
44
sheet. All that both the complaint and the charge sheet would
narrate is that the petitioners hurling abuses saying 'go and die'
and taking away the goats. These facts now depict mens rea on the
part of the petitioners, so as to abet the suicide of the father of the
complainant. Even if it is construed that they have uttered the word
"go and die", it would not mean in a literal sense, with intention to
abet the suicide of the father of the complainant. The inter-play of
the facts and the law would lead to obliteration of the crime.
15. The issue, whether this Court can entertain the matter at
the stage of pendency of trial, but before the charges could be
framed, is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of
MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF U.P.12, wherein the Apex Court
holds as follows:
"13. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
12
2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
45
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance
the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the Courts exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or even extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India should read between the
lines, looking to attending circumstances, emerging from the record
and with due care and circumspection try to analyze the complaint.
46
The Apex Court further holds that this Court need not restrict itself
only to the stage of the case, but is empowered to take into
consideration, overall circumstances leading to the initiation and
materials collected in the course of the investigation. The Apex
Court clearly holds that if the matter is even at the stage of
investigation, this Court should read between the lines and
obliterate the crime if it is an abuse. The case at hand is at the
stage of framing of charges which is not yet done. Therefore, all the
evidence is clearly available and no evidence would point at the
guilt of the accused. In the light of the judgments of the Apex
Court, as afore-quoted, permitting further proceeding against these
petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result
in miscarriage of justice.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.5011 of 2024 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanakapura 47 arising out of charge sheet bearing No.64 of 2023 filed by Kodihalli Police Station stand quashed qua the petitioners.
SD/-
______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA bkp CT:MJ