Karnataka High Court
Varun G A vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
R
Reserved on : 17.06.2025
Pronounced on : 25.06.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7620 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
VARUN G. A.,
S/O G.C.ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.2346
3RD CROSS ROAD
GANDHINAGARA
MANDYA - 571 401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B.NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VACHAN G. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . M.K.NAGANANDA
S/O KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2
RESIDENT OF 8TH MAIN
4TH CROSS ROAD
ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGARA
KYATHUMGERE BADAVANE
MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI B.RUDRESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VASANTHA KUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3016/2024 FILED BEFORE THE IV ADDL.
CIVIIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, ANEKAL BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 OF IPC AND SEC.
66(E) AND 67(A) OF I.T. ACT, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
HEBBAGODI POLICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.3016 of 2024 pending before the IV
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru
Rural District arising out of crime in Crime No.752 of 2023
registered for offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and
3Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2008
(‘the Act’ for short).
2. The skeletal facts, though tragic in their unfolding, are as
follows:-
The petitioner and the daughter of the complainant are said
to be classmates in P.E.S. Engineering College, Mandya and the
daughter of the complainant then began to work as a Business
Analyst in MERK Company at Bangalore and was residing in a
particular apartment for 1½ years prior to the date of registration
of the complaint. The daughter of the complainant was said to be
living alone for close to one year. A complaint comes to be
registered against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offences. The
fulcrum of the allegation is that the petitioner and the daughter of
the complainant had a relationship for over 3 years and the
relationship had resulted in certain assurances of marriage or
otherwise and there were financial transactions too between the
petitioner and the daughter of the complainant. On a particular day
i.e., on 28-12-2023 it appears that the daughter of the complainant
commits suicide and abetment to such suicide is laid on the
4petitioner on the score of aforesaid relationship. It then becomes a
crime in Crime No.752 of 2023 initially only for offence punishable
under Section 306 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation and
the investigation leads to filing of charge sheet retaining Section
306 IPC and adding Sections 66E and 67A of the Act. Pursuant
thereto, the concerned Court registers C.C.No.3016 of 2024 for the
afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven
the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Rudresh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. Learned senior counsel Sri Ravi B.Naik appearing for
petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner cannot be
alleged of abetment to suicide, as the complaint itself narrates that
the petitioner had hurled certain abuses against the daughter of the
complainant uttering ‘go and die’ and ‘do whatever you want’. This,
according to learned senior counsel, cannot become abetment to
5
suicide. He would further contend that the daughter of the
complainant had gone into depression due to severe loss of
investments in shares and had also got hypothyroidism which
caused her severe health problems. All these would not amount to
an offence of abetment of suicide.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant would vehemently contend that the
daughter of the complainant and the petitioner had a relationship is
an admitted fact. The daughter of the complainant and the
petitioner together, on the say of the petitioner, had invested huge
sums in the shares. That is besides the point. Since they were in a
relationship, the petitioner has tortured the daughter of the
complainant holding all nude pictures of hers in his mobile and
blackmailing the daughter of the complainant to part with money
from time to time. On the fateful day, on the terrace, the petitioner
fought with the daughter of the complainant and the fight led to the
daughter of the complainant jumping from the 6th floor and
committing suicide. Therefore, it is not a case of utterance of ‘go
and die’ but constant torture and blackmail holding several pictures
6
and blackmailing for the purpose of extortion of money from the
hands of the daughter of the complainant. He would submit that the
Police have filed a charge sheet and it is for the petitioner to come
out clean.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would take this
Court through the charge sheet and the statements or even the FSL
report of the pictures from the mobile phones of the petitioner and
that of the daughter of the complainant. He would contend that if it
is a simple case of utterance of ‘go and die’, there would be no case
for the prosecution, as the last fight between the petitioner and the
daughter of the complainant led to suicide of the daughter of the
complainant. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to
come out clean. The pictures that the petitioner had captured in his
mobile which are deciphered by the FSL are horrendous and holding
those nude pictures of the daughter of the complainant, the
petitioner threatened and extorted money close to ₹51/- lakhs.
Therefore, the matter must be tried and it is there the petitioner
has to prove his innocence.
7
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 afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the petitioner and the deceased is a matter of
record. They were in a relationship for about three years. Financial
transaction between the two is also a matter of record. The
transaction goes up to ₹51/- lakhs. It is also the revelation in the
complaint filed by the father of the deceased that there were
constant fights between the two and the relationship did not take
the deceased anywhere, as the petitioner has constantly avoided
fulfilling his promise of marriage despite having physical
relationship with the deceased. The deceased on 28-12-2023 is
said to have jumped from the 6th floor of the apartment and
committed suicide. The last person who was with the deceased was
the petitioner. Fight had erupted between the two and that fight led
to several abuses including the abuse of ‘go and die’ or ‘do
whatever you want’. On the death of the daughter of the
8
complainant the father registers the crime. The complaint reads as
follows:
"ರವ ೆ:
ೕ ಇ ೆ ೆಕ
ೆಬ ಗೂ ೕ ೆ ೕಷ
ಅ ೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು
"ೆಂಗಳ%ರು ಾ&'ಾಂತರ )*ೆ
'ಾನ,-ೇ,
.ಷಯ:- ನನ0 ಮಗ2ಾದ ಎಂ.ಎ . 567&ೕ ರವರು ಅ ಾಟ9:ಂ; :ೕ 5ಂದ
<ದು= ಾವನು0 ಅ>?ರುವ ಬ ೆ@ ).ಎ. ವರುA ಎಂಬ ವ,BCಯ :ೕ*ೆ
ಅನು’ಾನ.ರುವDದ ಂದ ಆತನನು0 ಬಂ6F ತ5Gೆ ೆ
ಒಳಪ ಸ”ೇKೆಂದು Kೋ ಮನ..
ಈ :ೕಲMಂಡ .ಷಯKೆM ಸಂಬಂ6Fದಂ ೆ ಎಂ.Kೆ. ಾ ಾನಂದ ಾದ ಾನು ತಮO ಗಮನKೆM
ತರಬಯಸುವDPೇ ೆಂದ-ೆ ನನ0 ಮಗ2ಾದ ಎಂ.ಎ 567&ೕ ಯು ಮಂಡ,ದ >.ಇ.ಎ ಇಂ)ೕ5ೕಯ ಂR
Kಾ*ೇ)ನ Sಾ,ಸಂಗ ‘ಾ <.ಇ ಪದ. ಪTೆದು ನಂತರ “ೆಂಗಳ% ನ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಅ .Kೆ ಕಂಪ5ಯ
ಕ2ೆದು 3 ವಷ9Uಂದ <F ೇ ಅ ಾ F ಆV Kೆಲಸ 5ವ9WಸುXCದು= ಹುZಮಂಗಲದ ಾಂ[ಾ
ೕ.ಂR ಅ ಾಟ9:ಂ; ನ ಕಳPೆ 1 1/2 ವಷ9Uಂದ Sಾಸ.ದ=ಳ\. ಇವಳ [ೊ ೆ ಾ&ರಂಭದ
F ^ಾ ಎಂಬ .Pಾ,_95ಯು ೇ ಮ ೆ ‘ಾ Kೊಂಡು ಇದು= ನಂತರ ಕ2ೆದ 7 Xಂಗಳ ಇಂPೇ F ^ಾ
ರವರು ೆ`aನ Sಾ,ಸಂಗKೆM .PೇಶKೆM ೋVದ=ರ W ೆ0*ೆ ಯ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ\ ಒಬ 2ೆ ಮ ೆಯ
ಇರುXCದ=ಳ\ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ\ ನcOಂದ ರೂ.40,00,000-00 (ನಲವತುC ಲd) ರೂ ಾeಗಳನು0 ಪTೆದು fೇರು
ವ,ವ ಾರ ನTೆಸುವDPಾV ಪTೆದು gೆ&ೕ ಂR ನTೆಸುXCರುವDದು ತಮO ಗಮನKೆM ತರಬಯಸು ೆC ೆ. ಈ
ನಡುSೆ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ [ೊ ೆ ).ಎ. ವರುA ಎಂಬ ಹುಡುಗನ [ೊ ೆ .ಂR ಟು ೇದರ ಇರುವDದು ನಮ ೆ
ಈಗ KೇZ ಬಂUರುತCPೆ. ಈ.ಎ. ವರುA ರವರು ನನ0 ಮಗಳ [ೊ ೆ ೇ gೆ&ೕ ಂR ವ,ವ ಾರ
ನTೆಸುXCದು=. ಎಂದು XZದುಬಂUದು= ನನ0 ಮಗZ ೆ ತ*ೆKೆಡF ಅವ ಂದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪiೕಗ ‘ಾ ರುವ
ಬ ೆ@ ನಮ ೆ ಗು’ಾ5 ಇರುತCPೆ. U ಾಂಕ:28-12-2023 ರ -ಾX& 2-30ರ ಸಮಯದ ಈತನ ಅವಳ
[ೊ ೆಯ*ೆ ಇದು=Pಾ=V XZದುಬಂUರುತCPೆ. ಆದ= ಂದ ಈತನನು0 ೆ`aನ .jಾರkೆ ೆ ಒಳಪ F ಸ ಾ,
ೊರಬರಬಹುPೆಂದು ನಮ ೆ ಗು’ಾ5 ಇರುವDದ ಂದ ದಯ’ಾ ಈತನನು0 ೆ`aನ ತ5Gೆ ೆ ಒಳಪ F
9
ನನ0 ಮಗಳ ಾ. ೆ ಾ,ಯ ಒದVFKೊಡ”ೇKೆಂದು Kೋರು ೆC ೆ. ನನ0 ಮಗಳ ಾ. ೆ ಈತನ ದುl
ೆ&ೕರkೆmೕ KಾರಣSಾVರುವDದ ಂದ ಇವನ :ೕ*ೆ Kಾನೂನು ಕ&ಮ Kೈ ೊಳo”ೇKೆಂದು Kೋರು ೆCೕ ೆ.
ವಂದ ೆಗ2ೆ% ಂU ೆ,
ಇಂX ತಮO .^ಾpF
ಸW
ಎಂ.Kೆ. ಾಗನಂದ
ಇಂದ
ಎಂ.Kೆ. ಾಗನಂದ
< *ೇ; ಎ . Kೆಂಪಯ,
ವಯಸು 56 ಒಕM ಗರು Sಾ, ಾರ ವೃXC
Sಾಸ ಅನ0ಪrkೇ9ಶp ನಗರ
Kಾ,ತುಂ ೆ-ೆ ಬTಾವkೆ
8 ೇ Kಾ& , 4 ೇ ಅಡsರ ೆC
ಮಂಡ, – 571 401.
U ಾಂಕ:28-12-23 ರಂದು “ೆZ ೆ@ 11-00 ಘಂgೆ ೆ >uಾ9ದುPಾರರು vಾkೆ ೆ ಾಜ-ಾV
5ೕ ದ °xತ yuಾ9ದನು0 ಪTೆದು vಾkಾ z ನಂ.752/2023 ಕಲಂ 306 ಐ>F ೕ ಾ, ಪ&ಕರಣ
Pಾಖ Fರು ೆC.
ಸW /-”
The complaint narrates that after the exist of one Sirisha, a girl
staying with the deceased, the petitioner began to stay in the same
apartment and therefore, they were in a living relationship and that
the deceased and the petitioner were in trading business. Apart
from financial transaction and living relationship nothing else was
narrated in the complaint. The complaint then becomes a crime in
10Crime No.752 of 2023 initially for offence punishable under Section
306 of the IPC alone. Pursuant to registration of complaint,
investigation is conducted. During the conduct of investigation, the
Police recovered laptop and mobile phones of both the deceased
and the petitioner and sent them to FSL. The report of FSL is placed
before the Court including pictures that the petitioner had shot in
his phone and transferred to the laptop. They are absolutely
horrendous. Nude pictures of the daughter of the complainant is
held on the phone and laptop of the petitioner. All the transactions
between the petitioner and the deceased were to the tune of
several lakhs and these pictures emerge in the FSL report. On
receipt of the report of FSL, the Police Sub-Inspector of Hebbagodi
Police Station communicates to the Police Inspector (CEN) enclosing
entire report. The communication reads as follows:
“ರವ ೆ,
‘ಾನ, ೕ ಅ6ೕdಕರು,
“ೆಂಗಳ%ರು )*ೆ,
“ೆಂಗಳ%ರು.
‘ಾನ,-ೆ,
11.ಷಯ :ಪ&ಕರಣದ ಆ’ಾನತುC ಪ FKೊಂ ರುವ z”ೈ ೕ ಗಳನು0
ಮತುC *ಾ,~ gಾ~ ಗಳ Tೇgಾ •&€ ಮತುC cೕರ ಇ:ೕ• ಅನು0
ಸಂಗ&WF Kೊಡಲು Kೋ ಮನ..
ಉ*ೇಖ: ೆಬ ೋ ೕ vಾkಾ z. ನಂ. 752/2023 ಕಲಂ 306 ಐ>F,
U ಾಂಕ: 28-12-2023~~~~****~~~~
:ೕಲMಂಡ .ಷಯ ಮತುC ಉ*ೇಖKೆM ಸಂಬಂUFದಂ ೆ ತಮO ಮನ.
‘ಾ Kೊಳ\oವDPೇ ೆಂದ-ೆ U ಾಂಕ:-28.12.2023 ರಂದು “ೆZ ೆ@ 11-00 ಗಂgೆ ೆ
>uಾ9UPಾರರು vಾkೆ ೆ ಾಜ-ಾV 5ೕ ದ ದೂ ನ ಾ-ಾಂಶSೇ ೆಂದ-ೆ, ನನ0 ಮಗ2ಾದ
ಎಂ.ಎ 567&ೕಯು ಮಂಡ,ದ >.ಇ.ಎ ಇಂ)5ಯ ಂR Kಾ*ೇ)ನ Sಾ,ಸಂಗ ‘ಾ
<.ಇ ಪದ. ಪTೆದು ನಂತರ “ೆಂಗಳ% ನ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಆ .Kೆ ಕಂಪ5ಯ ಕ2ೆದ 3 ವಷ9Uಂದ
<F ೆ ಅ ಾ F ಆV Kೆಲಸ 5ವ9WಸುXCದು= ಹು ಮಂಗಲದ ಾ ಂ[ಾ ೕ.ಂR
ಅ ಾ;9 :ಂ; ನ ಕ2ೆದ 1.1/2 ವಷ9Uಂದ Sಾಸ.ದ=ಳ\. ಇವಳ [ೊ ೆಯ ಾ&ರಂಭದ
F ^ಾ ಎಂಬ .Pಾ,_95ಯು ೇ ಮ ೆ ‘ಾ Kೊಂಡು ಇದು= ನಂತರ ಕ2ೆದ 7 Xಂಗಳ WಂPೆ
F ^ಾ ರವರು ೆ`aನ Sಾ,ಸಂಗKಾMV .PೇಶKೆM ೋVದ=ರ ಇ ೆ0*ೆಯ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ\ ಒಬ 2ೇ
ಮ ೆಯ ಇರುXCದ=ಳ\ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ\ ನcOಂದ ರೂ 40.00000-00 (ನಲವತುC ಲd)
ರೂ ಾeಗಳನು0 ಪTೆದು fೇರು ವ,ವ ಾರ ನTೆಸುವDPಾV ಪTೆದು gೆ&ೕ ಂR ನTೆಸುXCರುವDದು
ತಮO ಗಮನKೆM ತರಬಯಸು ೆCೕ ೆ. ಈ ನಡುSೆ ನನ0 ಮಗಳ [ೊ ೆ ).ಎ ವರುA ಎಂಬ
ಹುಡುಗನ [ೊ ೆ .ಂR ಟು ೆದ ಇರುವDದು ನಮ ೆ ಈಗ XZದು ಬಂUರುತCPೆ, ).ಎ ವರುA
ರವರು ನನ0 ಮಗಳ [ೊ ೆ ೇ gೆ&ೕ ಂR ವ,ವ ಾರ ನTೆಸುXCದ=ರು ಎಂದು XZದು ಬಂUದು=
ನನ0 ಮಗZ ೆ ತ*ೆ Kೆ F ಅವZಂದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪiೕಗ ‘ಾ ರುವ ಬ ೆ@ ನಮ ೆ
ಗು’ಾ5eರುತCPೆ. U ಾಂಕ:-28.12.2023 ರಂದು -ಾX& 02-35 ರ ಸಮಯದ ಈತನು
ಅವಳ [ೊ ೆಯ*ೇ ಇದು=PಾV XZದು ಬಂUರುತCPೆ. ಆದ= ಂದ ಈತನನು0 ೆ`aನ
.jಾರkೆ ೊಳಪ F ಸತ, ೊರ ಬರುವDPೆಂದು ನಮ ೆ ಗು’ಾ5 ಇರುವDದ ಂದ ದಯ’ಾ
ಈತನನು0 ೆ`aನ ತ5Gೆ ೆ ಒಳಪ F ನನ0 ಮಗಳ ಾ. ೆ ಾ,ಯ ಒದVFKೊಡ”ೇKೆಂದು
Kೋರು ೆCೕ ೆ. ನನ0 ಮಗಳ ಾ. ೆ ಈತನ Pೆpೕಷ ೆ&ೕರkೆmೕ Kಾರಣ SಾVರುವDದ ಂದ ಇವನ
:ೕ*ೆ Kಾನೂನು ಕ&ಮ Kೈ ೊಳo “ೇKೆಂದು Kೋರು ೆCೕ ೆಂದು ಇ ಾ,UuಾV 5ೕ ದ ದೂ ನ
:ೕ-ೆ ೆ vಾkಾ z.ಸಂ.752/2023 ಕಲಂ 306 ಐ>F ೕ ಾ, ಪ&ಕರಣ Pಾಖಲು ‘ಾ
ತ5Gೆಯನು0 Kೈ ೊಂ ರುತCPೆ.
12
ನಂತರ, ಈ ಪ&ಕರಣದ ಸƒಳ ಪಂಚ ಾ: Kಾಲದ >uಾ9U ತಂದು ಾಜರುಪ Fದ ಮೃ ೆ
567&ೕ ರವರ “ಾ§ÄÛ POCO ಕಂಪ5ಯ z”ೈ …ೕ ಮತುC Dell Company ಯ
ಒಂದು *ಾ,~ gಾ~ ಅನು0 ಮುಂUನ ಕ&ಮದ ಬ ೆ@ ಅ’ಾನತುC ಪ FKೊಂಡು ಪ& ೆ,ೕಕSಾV
vಾkಾ ‘ಾಲು ಪ• ಸಂGೆ,: 343/2023ರ ೊಂPಾeFKೊಂ ರು ೆC.ಅPೇ Uನ ಪ&ಕರಣದ ಆ-ೋ> ವರುA ನನು0 ದಸCV ಯನು0 ‘ಾ . ಆತನ
.jಾರkೆಯನು0 ‘ಾಡುವ ಸಮಯದ ಆತನ “ಾ§ÄÛ POCO ಕಂಪ5ಯ z”ೈ …ೕ
ಮತುC DELL Inspiron 15 ಕಂಪ5ಯ *ಾ,~ gಾ~ ಅನು0 ಾಜರುಪ Fದು=, ಅದನು0 ಸಹ
ಪಂಚರ ಸಮdಮ ಅ’ಾನತುC ಪ FKೊಂಡು ಪ& ೆ,ೕಕSಾV -ಾkಾ ‘ಾಲು ಪ• ಸಂGೆ,:
343(<)/2023ರ ೊಂPಾeFKೊಂ ರು ೆC.
ಆದ= ಂದ, ಈ KೇFನ ಅ'ಾನತುC ಪ FKೊಂ ರುವ :ೕಲMಂಡ z"ೈ ...ೕ
ಗಳ ಮತುC *ಾ,~ gಾ~ ಗಳ ಪ&ಕರಣದ ಮೃತಪ• ರುವ 567&ೕ ಮತುC ಆ-ೋ> ವರುA
ರವರು ಹಂ`Kೊಂ ರುವ . iಗಳ\, …ೕgೋಗಳ\, :ೕ ೇ• ಗಳ .ವರ, ಅ *ೈ
ಹಣKಾFನ .ವರಗಳ Tೇgಾವನು0 næÀ ಮತುC cೕರ ಇ:ೕ• ಅನು0 ಸಂಗ&WF ವರU
5ೕಡಲು Kೋ Pೆ.
ತಮO .^ಾpF,
ಸW /-
Police Sub Inspector
Hebbagodi Police Station
Bangalore District.
Received on 08/01/2024
Sd/-
Police Inspector’
Cyber, Economic, Narcotic (CEN)
Police Station
Bangalore District.”
After this and analyzing the statements recorded, the police file a
charge sheet against the petitioner not only for the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, but including the offences punishable under
13
Sections 66E and 67A of the Act. The summary of the charge sheet
as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
“17. Brief facts of the case
ಕಲಂ. 306 ಐ>F [ೊ ೆ ೆ 66(E), 67(J) L.n. DPïÖ.
ಘನ ಾ,uಾಲಯದ Sಾ,>C ೆ ೇ ದ ಅ ೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, )ಗ† ೋಬZ, ಹಬು ೊ ೕ
vಾkಾ ಸರಹದು= ಹು ಮಂಗಲ ಾ&ಮದ ಬZ ಇರುವ ¸ÁÖAeÁ .ೕಂR ಅ ಾ;9 :ಂ; ನ 4 ೇ
ಮಹ ಯ ರುವ ಮ ೆ ನಂ. 401 ರ , 567&ೕ, 25 ವಷ9 ಮತುC Kಾಲಂ ನಂ. 12 ರ ಕಂಡ ಆ-ೋ>ಯು
.ಂR ಟು ೆದ ೕXಯ ಒಂPೇ ಮ ೆಯ Sಾಸ ‘ಾಡುXCದು=, 567&ೕ ರವರು gೆ&ೕ ಂR <F ೆ
ೆ ಹಣವನು0 ಹೂ Kೆ ‘ಾಡುXCದು= 56ೕ7&ೕ ತಮO ೕಷಕ ಂದ ಸು’ಾರು 51 ಲdಕೂM ೆಚುa ಹಣ
ಪTೆದು )-ೋದ, ಶ‡ನ,, 5 ¥ÉÊ ಾ, Sಾಜ ˆ, ಆ~ ¸ÁÖˆ ಎಂಬ ಕಂಪ5ಗಳ gೆ&ೕ ಂR <F ೆ ೆ
ಹೂ Kೆ ‘ಾ ಎಲ ಹಣವನು0 ಕ2ೆದುKೊಂ ದು=, ಇದKೆM ಆ-ೋ> ಸಹಕ Fದು=, 567&ೕ ಹಣವನು0
ಕ2ೆದುKೊಂTೆ ಎಂದು “ೇ[ಾರು ‘ಾ Kೊಂಡು ಾನು ಬದುಕುವDUಲ, ಾಯ”ೇಕು ಎಂದು ೇಳ\XCದು=,
ಆ-ೋ> ಆKೆ ೆ ಬುU=Sಾದ ೇಳPೆ ಇದು= U ಾಂಕ: 28/12/2023 ರಂದು ಮುಂ[ಾ ೆ ಸು’ಾರು 2-30
ಗಂgೆಯ :ೕಲMಂಡ ಾ ಂ[ಾ .ಂR ಅ ಾ;9 :ಂ; ನ gೆರ :ೕ*ೆ ೋVPಾ=ಗ 567&ೕ ಮತುC
ಆ-ೋ> ಗ*ಾgೆ ‘ಾ Kೊಂಡು ಆ-ೋ> 567&ೕ ೆ 5ೕನು gೆ&ೕ ಂR <F ೆ ೆ ಹಣವನು0 ಹೂ
ಎಲವನು0 ಕ2ೆದುKೊಂTೆ 5ೕನು ಇದ=ರೂ ಅfೆ , ಸತCರೂ ಅfೆ , ಏ ಾದರೂ ‘ಾ Kೊಂಡು ಾe ಎಂದು
ೇZ mÉರ 5ಂದ Kೆಳ ೆ ಇZUದು=, ಆ-ೋ> ‘ಾ ದ ದುµÉàçÃರkೆeಂದ ಮನ ೊಂದ 567&ೕ gೆರ
:ೕ ಂದ ಾ <ದು= ಆKೆಯ Pೇಹದ :ೕ*ೆ Xೕವ& ಸpರೂಪದ ಾಯಗ2ಾV ಸƒಳದ¯Éè, ಮೃತಪ• ರುವDದು
ಾಗೂ ಆ-ೋ>ಯು 567&ೕ ತನ0 [ೊ ೆಯ ದ= ಸಮಯದ ತನ0 z”ೈ ನ 567&ೕ ರವರ “ೆತC*ೆ
ೕgೋಗಳನು0 ೆ ೆದು ತನ0 z”ೈ ನ ಇಟು Kೊಂ ರುವDದು ತ5Gೆeಂದ ಧೃಡಪ• ರು ೆC.ಆದ= ಂದ ಆ-ೋ>ಯ .ರುದ‹ :ೕಲMಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕ ಾ, ಈ Pೋfಾ-ೋಪkೆ ¥ÀnÖ”
If one notices the complaint, the report of FSL and admitted facts of
living relationship between the two, what has triggered the
commission of suicide can only be a matter of evidence. Section
306 of the IPC deals with abetment to suicide. It reads as follows:
14
“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.”
The word abetment is defined in Section 107 of the IPC. If the
ingredients of what can become abetment as found in Section 107
is pitted to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it becomes
unmistakably clear that the petitioner, prima facie, has abetted
commission of suicide of the daughter of the complainant. It is the
submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that
the petitioner has blackmailed or threatened the deceased to part
with close to ₹50/- lakhs through credit card or otherwise for his
business or business of both, is a matter of trial as laptop and
mobile phone of the petitioner is full of pictures and videos between
the deceased and the petitioner, all taken during the live-in
relationship of the petitioner with the deceased.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner would
place reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex
Court to hold that utterance of words ‘go and die’ would not
15
become abetment to suicide. There can no qualm about the
principle so laid down by the Apex Court. Quoting all of them would
only render to the bulk of the subject judgment. The Apex Court in
those very judgments has held that proximity between the
commission of suicide and alleged statement assumes significance.
If that principle is considered, the petitioner was last found with the
deceased who had a live-in relationship, fight had admittedly
erupted between the two and the daughter of the complainant
commits suicide by jumping from the 6th floor of the apartment. The
last person with whom the deceased had any communication or was
with her was the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts of the case on
hand, those judgments that have been rendered by the Apex Court
would not become applicable.
10. A precious life is lost due to the alleged acts of the
petitioner in blackmailing and breach of assurance. If holding of
nude pictures of the deceased and blackmailing is proved, it can
undoubtedly become abetment to suicide. In the aforesaid
circumstance, reference being made to the judgment of the Apex
16
Court in the case of MAHENDRA K.C. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1
would become apposite. The Apex Court holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious
purview of the contents of the complaint and the suicide
note for a judicial mind to arrive at a conclusion that a
case for quashing the FIR had been established. In
arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge has
transgressed the well-settled limitations on the exercise
of the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has
encroached into a territory which is reserved for a
criminal trial.
19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to
issue such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal
process or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on
the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well-
settled. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [State of
Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2
SCC (Cri) 272] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, observed that
: (SCC pp. 547-48, para 8)
“8. … While exercising the powers under the
section, the court does not function as a court of appeal
or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section
though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution and only when such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is
to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone
the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers the court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that
1
(2022) 2 SCC 129
17
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the report, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed,
it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what
the report has alleged and whether any offence is made
out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”
20. These principles emanate from the decisions of this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] and State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori [State of
M.P. v. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC 155 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ)
921 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 247 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 940] .
In Surendra Kori [State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC
155 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 921 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 247 : (2012)
2 SCC (L&S) 940] , this Court observed : (Surendra Kori
case [State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC 155 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 921 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 247 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 940] , SCC p. 163, para 14)“14. The High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 CrPC does not function as a court of
appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments,
held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully
and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482
CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete
and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material.”
21. In Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , this Court laid down
the principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High
Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash
an FIR. Ratnavel Pandian, J. laid down the limits on the exercise
of the power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR and
observed : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
18
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(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)
CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.
(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) CrPC.
(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.
19
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
The judgment in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] has been
recently relied on by this Court in State of
Telangana v. Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet,
(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] .
22. Based on the above precedent, the High Court
while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the FIR instituted against the second respondent-
accused should have applied the following two tests : (i)
whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima
facie constitute an offence; and (ii) whether the
allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would
not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground
to proceed with the complaint. Before proceeding further,
it is imperative to briefly discuss the law on the abetment
of suicide to determine if a prima facie case under Section
306 IPC has been made out against the respondent-
accused.
23. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment of the
abetment of suicide:
“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 107 IPC defines the expression “abetment”:
20
“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 lakes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; orThirdly.–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.”
24. The essence of abetment lies in instigating a person
to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or
illegal omission. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9
SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through R.C. Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief
Justice then was), observed : (SCC p. 629, para 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 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.”
21
25. A two-Judge Bench of 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] ,
speaking through D.K. Jain, J., observed : (SCC pp. 611-12,
paras 19-20)
“19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , where the accused by his acts or
by a continued course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be
inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the
accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it
has to be established that:
(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.
20. In the background of this legal position, we
may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what
is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because
suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are
complex and multifaceted. 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 suicidality 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.”
(emphasis in original)
22
26. This has been reiterated in the decision in Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1
SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , where it has been
observed : (SCC p. 712, para 12)
“12. … 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.”
(See also in this context the judgments in Praveen
Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [Praveen Pradhan v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146]
, VaijnathKondibaKhandke v. State of
Maharashtra [VaijnathKondibaKhandke v. State of Maharashtra,
(2018) 7 SCC 781 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 362] , M.
Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219] , Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 306] , Rajesh v. State of Haryana [Rajesh v. State of
Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 75]
and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurcharan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 : (2021) 1 SCC
(Cri) 417] . These decisions have been recently referred to in
the judgment of this Court in Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra [Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427: (2021) 1
SCC (Cri) 834] ).
27. While adjudicating on an application under
Section 482 CrPC, the High Court in the present case
travelled far away from the parameters for the exercise
of the jurisdiction. Essentially, the task before the High
Court was to determine whether 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 did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or
make out a case against the accused.
23
28. Instead of applying this settled principle, the
High Court has proceeded to analyse from its own
perspective the veracity of the allegations. It must be
emphasised that this is not a case where the High Court
has arrived at a conclusion that the allegations in the FIR
or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person could ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. Nor is this a case where
the criminal proceeding is manifestly mala fide or has
been instituted with an ulterior motive of taking
vengeance on the accused. On the contrary, the specific
allegations in the FIR and in the complaint find due
reflection in the suicide note and establish a prima facie
case for abetment of suicide within the meaning of
Sections 306 and 107 IPC. The entire judgment [L.
Bheema Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3395] of the High Court consists of a litany of surmises
and conjectures and such an exercise is beyond the
domain of proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. The High
Court has proceeded to scrutinise what has been
disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that the
investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the
High Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under
Section 482.
29. The High Court observed that a prima facie case
for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC is
not made out since : (i) the suicide note does not
describe the specific threats; (ii) details of the alleged
demand of Rs 8 lakhs from the deceased by the
respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note;
and (iii) no material to corroborate the allegations
detailed in the suicide note has been unearthed by the
investigating agency. The High Court observed that since
the deceased took considerable time to write a twelve
page suicide note, “it would have been but natural for the
author to set out the details”. The High Court has
evidently travelled far beyond the limits of its inherent
power under Section 482 CrPC since instead of
determining whether on a perusal of the complaint, a
prima facie case is made out, it has analysed the
24
sufficiency of the evidence with reference to the suicide
note and has commented upon and made strong
observations on the suicide note itself.
30. Paras 32, 33, 34 and 39 of the order [L. Bheema
Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3395] of the
High Court are extracted below : (L. Bheema Naik case [L.
Bheema Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3395]
, SCC OnLine Kar)
“32. In Para 21 [of the suicide/death note] [Ed. :
As per para 31 of the impugned judgment of the High
Court in L. Bheema Naik case, it is recorded as
follows:”… The deceased has written a detailed death
note consisting of 21 numbered and one unnumbered
paragraphs. Out of 22 paragraphs, 20 paragraphs
pertain to alleged dealings and the only probable portion
of the death note, which could be relied upon to
establish the culpability of the petitioner are Para 21….”]
, a bald statement is made stating that because he is
aware of all the above transaction, he was given a death
threat. In the next sentence, he states that he has been
psychologically/emotionally in trouble and hence, he is
consuming poison and that the petitioner and his driver
alone are responsible. For a person, who has detailed 20
transactions, it can be prudently expected of such a
person to give details of the threat.
33. In the next unnumbered paragraph, a totally
different story/note is set out as a reason for the
petitioner threatening the deceased. In the unnumbered
paragraph, he states that there was shortage in the cash
to the tune of Rs 8 lakhs and that the petitioner
suspected him as being responsible for the same and
hence, threatened him that if the deceased did not
repay said Rs 8 lakhs, he would have the deceased killed
at the hands of rowdies. Thereafter, in the next
sentence he states that in view of the same, he has
decided to consume poison and that the petitioner and
his driver are responsible for the same.
34. In Para 20 [of the suicide/death note], the
deceased holds the petitioner responsible for withholding
the salary for the last three months. The other
paragraphs including Para 20 [of the suicide/death note]
detail the properties said to have been amassed by the
25
petitioner and other illegal transactions. After having
perused and scrutinised the death note, a query was put
to the learned High Court Government Pleader and the
counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent as to
whether the investigation has thrown up any material
that corroborates any of the allegations set out in the
death note. The learned High Court Government Pleader
would fairly submit that they have not been able
unearth any material to corroborate any of the
allegations.
* * *
39. As discussed above, the death note contains
no incriminating statement or material except for a bald
and vague statement but that the accused had
threatened him. Even the complaint does not disclose
any details of the alleged threat nor does the complaint
state that the deceased had on multiple occasions
complained of having received threats from accused.
Even the allegation of the demand for repayment of Rs 8
lakhs rings hollow as neither the prosecution nor the de
facto complainant have been able to place an iota of
material that the deceased was or had in fact been in
possession of huge sum of money.”
Further, the observation of the High Court that there is no
material to corroborate the allegations made in the suicide note
is erroneous since it is not a consideration for the High Court
while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC, particularly
in view of the fact that the trial has not begun and the Single
Judge had stayed the investigation in the criminal complaint.
31. The Single Judge, other than deciding on the
merits of the case while exercising the power under
Section 482 CrPC, has also made observations
diminishing the importance of mental health. The mental
health of a person cannot be compressed into a one-size-
fits-all approach. In para 37 of the impugned judgment
[L. Bheema Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine
Kar 3395] , the Single Judge observed : (L. Bheema Naik
case [L. Bheema Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC
OnLine Kar 3395] , SCC OnLine Kar)
“37. It is not the case of the deceased that
the accused had deprived him of his wealth or
26
have committed acts that have shattered his hopes
in life or separated him from his family and
friends.”
The Single Judge then makes the following observation in
paras 41 and 43 : (L. Bheema Naik case [L. Bheema
Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3395] ,
SCC OnLine Kar)
“41. … It is not the case of the prosecution
that the deceased was running away from or
escaping the petitioner or his henchmen, but as is
his habit, to visit his parents and to spend time
with his friends. If the deceased had really felt
threatened, he would have definitely approached
the police. It is not that he was naive or not
worldly-wise. If his employment with the
petitioner was true, then the Police
Commissionerate was only a stone’s throw away.
It is not that the deceased was a weakling. The
deceased by profession, is a driver. A profession
where, accidents causing loss of life and limb are a
daily occurrence and every driver is aware that he
could be involved in an accident at any time.
* * *
43. His act of attending a relatives marriage
in a different town and his interacting with friends
and relatives are all actions of a normal person
and not of a person under severe duress. The
contention that this criminal case would
jeopardise his career progression also cannot be
brushed aside. It is also not forthcoming as to how
he sourced the poison.”
32. The Single Judge has termed a person who
decided to commit suicide a “weakling” and has also
made observations on how the behaviour of the deceased
before he committed suicide was not that of a person
who is depressed and suffering from mental health
issues. Behavioural scientists have initiated the discourse
on the heterogeneity of every individual and have
challenged the traditional notion of “all humans behave
alike”. Individual personality differences manifest as a
variation in the behaviour of people. Therefore, how an
27
individual copes up with a threat–both physical and
emotional, expressing (or refraining to express) love,
loss, sorrow and happiness, varies greatly in view of the
multi-faceted nature of the human mind and emotions.
Thus, the observations describing the manner in which a
depressed person ought to have behaved deeply
diminishes the gravity of mental health issues.
33. The High Court by its order [L. Bheema
Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3395]
has prevented the completion of the investigation in the
complaint registered as Crime No. 565 of 2016 pending
on the file of the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and JMFC Court, Maddur, Mandya District. The
alleged suicide is of a person who was working as a
driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is a
public servant and against whom serious and grave
allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the
known sources of income were made by the deceased.
The suicide note contains a detailed account of the role of
the accused in the events which led to the deceased
committing suicide. These are matters of investigation
and possibly trial. The High Court stalled the
investigation by granting an interim order of stay. If the
investigation had been allowed to proceed, there would
have been a revelation of material facts which would aid
in the trial, for the alleged offence against the second
respondent.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has come down heavily on this Court for having
quashed the proceedings against the accused therein by entering
into merits of the matter. The Apex Court holds, prima facie
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC were clearly met in the case
and, therefore, the Court could not have quashed the proceedings.
28
The findings rendered by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid
judgment, would become applicable to the facts in the case as well.
11. The digital trial – the contents of the phones, the
FSL report and the testimonies recorded, do not allow this
Court to step into the shoes of the trial Court. The plea that
this is a case of mere scorned affection or a casual taunt
cannot be countenanced when placed against the backdrop
of deliberate humiliation and alleged extortion. The nuances
and textures of this tragic narrative must be unfolded in a
full blown trial. It cannot be forgotten that a young life has
been extinguished in a manner that raises grave concern. It
is for the trial Court to examine the depth of betrayal, the
extent of coercion and the veracity of the claims. In the light
of the aforesaid glaring facts and the preceding analysis, this Court
declines to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
to quash the proceedings.
29
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merits
stands rejected.
Interim order of any kind operating shall stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:SS