- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14578 CRL.P No. 136 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 136 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANAND N P S/O PILLARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.479, 3RD CROSS, SHIVASHANKAR BLOCK, NEAR HEBBAL POLICE STATION HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024. 2. SRI LOKESH V S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.467, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, HEBBAL-560024. 3. SRI VENKATA SHIVA REDDY M S/O EASHWAR REDDY M, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.6/57, RMV 2ND STAGE, BHOOPASANDRA, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINATHA B.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14578 CRL.P No. 136 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NEAR F2 KAVEN GUEST HOUSE UAS, CAMPUS HEBBAL, BENGALURU, PIN CODE 560024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VEENA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.39883/2024 (CR.NO.278/2023) WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 8TH A.C.J.M COURT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306,506 OF IPC REGISTER BY HEBBAL POLICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 23.07.2023, the petitioners invited the deceased to celebrate the birthday of accused No. 3 at a bar and restaurant. While consuming liquor, the accused allegedly picked up a quarrel with the deceased and told him to “go and die” since his girlfriend was engaged to another person. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14578 CRL.P No. 136 of 2025 Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased returned home and committed suicide by hanging. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the charge sheet materials clearly disclose that the petitioners- accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further contended that the veracity of the allegations must be examined during trial and cannot be considered at this preliminary stage, and therefore sought dismissal of the petition. 4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 5. Initially, a complaint was lodged reporting an unnatural death, and the case was closed. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on 02.12.2023 alleging that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the petitioners-accused at the bar and restaurant, wherein they allegedly told the deceased to “go and die” since his girlfriend was engaged to another person. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the following essential ingredients must be satisfied: i) There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14578 CRL.P No. 136 of 2025 ii) There must be a suicidal death and abetment thereof. iii) There must be continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death. iv) Such irritation or annoyance must be proximate to the time of occurrence of the death. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 1 SCC 433] has held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence, and there must be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, leaving them with no option. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 873], at paragraph 23, has held as follows: “23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 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 would not, in themselves, be sufficient, unless there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive, and the allegations attributed to the accused are not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances, while also taking into - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14578 CRL.P No. 136 of 2025 consideration the surrounding factors that may have a bearing on the alleged conduct of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.” 9. The mere utterance of the words “go and die” does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. 10. In the absence of the essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, which are conspicuously lacking in the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.39883/2024 on the file of the 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3