- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12777 CRL.P No. 13435 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13435 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. K. NAGARAJ, S/O N KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 92 (OLD NO.126), NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, JAI BHIM COLONY, MAYASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY BELLAVI POLICE STATION, TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 602. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP., KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. RAKESH N., S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT 6TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA TUMAKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12777 CRL.P No. 13435 of 2024 THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7152/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 306,114 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 3rd ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMAKURU.I.A.NO.1/2024 FOR STAY.I.A.NO.1/2024 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PLEASED TO SAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7152/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.306,114 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 3rd ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMAKURU, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No. 3, who has been charge- sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the deceased—father of the complainant—was acquainted with accused No. 1, who, in turn, introduced accused No. 2, a broker for a trading company. They induced the deceased to invest money in the trading company. Similarly, C.W. 1 and C.W. 2, the son and wife of the deceased, also invested money in the trading company. When the invested funds and profits were not returned, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 allegedly stated that the trading company was operating at a loss and that the money would not be returned under any circumstances. Unable to recover the funds, the deceased committed suicide. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12777 CRL.P No. 13435 of 2024 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The petitioner had given a sum of Rs.20,00,000 to the deceased for investment in the trading company, along with Rs.15,00,000 to accused No. 2 for the same purpose. Apart from the allegation that accused No. 3 and others stated that the invested funds, including profits, would not be returned due to the company’s losses, there is no material to satisfy the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 5. The issue involved in the petition was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Maregouda S/o Veerabhadrappa G. v. State of Karnataka and others in Crl.P. No.103887/2022 dated 29.01.2025, and that decision was affirmed. 6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties, the following is observed: The allegation against the petitioner—that, as a Recovery Officer, he harassed the deceased to repay a loan and allegedly told him to “go and die” if he failed to make the payment—is not supported by material evidence. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that on 16.04.2021 the petitioner called the deceased on the telephone and pressured him to repay the loan. Apart from self-serving statements by interested witnesses, no independent material establishes that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12777 CRL.P No. 13435 of 2024 petitioner exerted undue pressure on the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, held that mere words such as “go and die” are not prima facie sufficient to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the following essential elements must be satisfied: • There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. • There must be a suicidal death and an act of abetment leading to it. • There must be continuous harassment by the accused prior to the death. • Such harassment or provocation must be proximate to the time of the deceased’s death. 8. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, at para 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either a direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12777 CRL.P No. 13435 of 2024 not sufficient unless there are specific acts by the accused that compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused are not of such a nature that they would ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, every case must be examined on its own facts and circumstances, considering the surrounding factors that may have influenced the actions of the accused and the mental state of the deceased.” 9. In the absence of substantial evidence demonstrating that the death of the de facto complainant’s father resulted from abetment by the petitioner/accused—and given the lack of material indicating that the petitioner incited the deceased to commit suicide—the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7152/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru insofar it relates to accused No.3 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12