- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200654 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SUGANDHA W/O SANTOSHKUMAR RADHU, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: PDO GRAM PANCHAYAT SINDHANKERA, VILLAGE SINDHANKERA, TQ. CHITGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585330. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHITGUPPA POLICE STATION, DIST. BIDAR-585302, REPRESENTED BY, THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585501. 2. JANABAI W/O SUBHASH BURLEKAR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SINDHANKERA, TQ. CHITGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585330. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY THE CHITGUPPA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.42/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 108 OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIVN.) AND JMFC, AT HUMNABAD. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) Notice to respondent No.2/complainant is dispensed with for the reason that the learned High Court Government Pleader can also represent the complainant in the offences registered under Indian Penal Code or BNS, 2023. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.42/2025 registered by Chitaguppa Police Station, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr., Dn.,) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 and JMFC, Humnabad, for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. 3. Factual matrix of the case: It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant-Janabai W/o Subasha Bhurlekar lodged a complaint on 02.04.2025 at about 3.15 p.m., stating that her husband was working as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator at Sindhankera Gram Panchayat. The petitioner who was working as Panchayat Development Officer in the said office is stated to have withheld salary of her husband for the last two years. On 01.04.2025, the petitioner is stated to have scolded the husband of the complainant about the incomplete work of PMAY scheme and also insulted him stating that he was incompetent. As a result of which, the husband of the complainant became ill and he was suffering from mental agony. Later, even though he was shifted to the hospital for treatment, he died in the said hospital. Based on the said complaint, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 respondent-Police have registered a case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 4. Heard Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the allegation made against the petitioner is that she had subjected the husband of the complainant to cruelty, mental agony and harassment at work place, as a result of which, he died, the fact remains that, the said death cannot be construed as suicide to attract the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS, 2023. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner has to be quashed. Making such submissions, he prayed for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 opposed the said submissions and he submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that husband of the complainant was suffering from mental agony as his salary was withheld by the petitioner since last two years and he was being insulted often in front of the public stating that he was incompetent. As a cumulative effect of insult and harassment resulted in the death of the deceased. Hence, it can be construed that the death was due to abetment. As there are materials to proceed with the investigation against the petitioner and as the entire investigation has to be carried out in accordance with law, it is not appropriate at this stage to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, he prayed for rejecting the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the records that the petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer of Sindhankera Gram Panchayat. The husband of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 complainant was working as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator in the office of the Panchayat. It is alleged that his salary was withheld by the petitioner since two years and he was being harassed at the work place. Except these allegations made in the complaint, husband of the complainant had not made any allegations against the petitioner during his life time. 8. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the ingredients of the offence and submitted that since the husband of the complainant died naturally in the hospital due to his ailments, his death cannot be considered as suicide. 9. Having considered the said submission, it is relevant to refer to Section 45 of BNS, 2023 which reads as under: “45. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (a) instigates any person to do that thing; or - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 (b) 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 (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 10. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011)3 SCC 626 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word ‘suicide’ means ‘self- killing’ i.e., ‘sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’. It is an act of self-killing. Thus, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself irrespective of means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. 11. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it emerges that to constitute it an offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023, the prosecution has to prove that the death is as a result of suicide. In other - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 words, to constitute an offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023, suicide is sine-qua-non. In the absence of proof regarding suicide, the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS, 2023 cannot be sustained. 12. On reading of the averments of the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that there are no ingredients regarding the offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is asked to face the trial, it would be an abuse of process of law. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The complaint, FIR and entire proceedings in Crime No.42/2025 registered by Chitaguppa Police Station, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr., Dn.,) and JMFC, Humnabad, as against the petitioner are quashed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2581 CRL.P No. 200654 of 2025 In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT:PK