- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103801 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR ANAND RAO K. PASTEY S/O. LATE KUBERAPPA PASTEY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. KAWSABAGOWDARA ONI, KAMANAKATTI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DHARWAD SUB URBAN POLICE, DHARWAD, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SMT. BAHRATHI W/O. NINGARAJ SIDDAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. LIG-41/1A, MALTHESH NILAYA, CHAITANYA NAGAR, KELEGERI ROAD, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., PRAVEEN P.TARIKAR AND SRI. KUSHAL N.KAMBLE, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 I.E., THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN SPL. SC/ST NO. 54/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN CRIME NO. 155/2023, DHARWAD SUB-URBAN P.S. P/U/SEC. 306, 504, 506, 354, 323, 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(2)(V), 3(2)(va) OF THE SCHEDULED CASE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015 AND NOW Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506, 354, 323, and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, has approached this Court. 2. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, lodged an FIR stating that her husband had taken a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner, agreeing to repay it with 3% monthly interest. The petitioner, after deducting three months’ interest of Rs.90,000/- in advance, handed over a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- to her husband. The complainant’s husband, Mr. Ningraj, regularly paid the monthly interest until the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 lockdown prevented him from continuing payments. 3. In this context, the petitioner, with the help of other accused, allegedly threatened and assaulted the complainant’s husband, coercing him to execute a sale deed for their residential house in favor of accused No.2. The deed was registered on 14.06.2019 at the Sub-Registrar’s office, where the complainant’s husband was allegedly taken by force. Additionally, the registration expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- were also deducted as interest. On 29.11.2019, accused No.2, accompanied by three women, accused No.3, and accused No.6, arrived at the complainant’s house at 7:00 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 a.m., demanding that they vacate the premises unless they paid Rs.20,00,000/-. The accused remained in the house until 12:30 a.m. and threatened that if the amount was not paid, they would bring 40 to 50 people from their village in a tractor and squat on the property. 4. The complainant has stated that she possesses video evidence of the incident. She further alleged that accused No.3 threatened their tenants to vacate the house. Additionally, on 19.06.2023, at about 1:56 p.m., accused No.2, accompanied by five individuals on three motorcycles, allegedly abused the complainant and her husband in filthy language over the non- payment of the debt. The accused further threatened to throw out their belongings if they failed to vacate the house. 5. The complainant also alleged that on 20.06.2023 at approximately 12:17 p.m., accused No.5, accompanied by three others, arrived at her house and again abused her in filthy language. Furthermore, on 15.07.2023, at around 1:45 p.m., while her husband and other family members were not present, accused No.2, accused No.7, and accused No.5, along with 12 others, allegedly entered the house, abused respondent No.2, and threw some of their belongings outside. She further claimed that due to the continuous harassment and suffering inflicted by the petitioners/accused, her husband recorded a video of his ordeal on his mobile phone on 21.07.2023 and consumed poison later that night at 8:00 p.m. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 6. Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the only allegation against accused No.1 is that the deceased had borrowed Rs.10 lakhs, from which Rs.90,000/- was deducted as interest for three months, and that the deceased committed suicide on 21.07.2023. He argued that there is no direct link between the deduction of the interest amount and the deceased’s suicide. In the absence of essential elements constituting the alleged offence against the petitioner, he contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. In support of his argument, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Geo Varghese vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 873. 7. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that accused No.1, in an attempt to recover the loan, coerced the deceased into executing a registered sale deed in favor of accused No.2. Thereafter, accused No.2, along with other accused, harassed the deceased by occupying his house property, ultimately leading him to commit suicide. They contended that the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner should be examined at trial rather than at this stage and, therefore, sought dismissal of the petition. 8. The arguments of both parties have been duly considered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 9. A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that the allegation against accused No.1 is that he advanced a loan of Rs.10 lakhs to the deceased, deducting Rs.90,000/- as interest for three months. While the deceased initially paid the monthly interest regularly, he defaulted due to financial hardships caused by the COVID-19 lockdown. Consequently, accused No.1, in connivance with other accused, allegedly threatened and assaulted the deceased, forcing him to transfer the subject property to accused No.2 through a registered sale deed in lieu of the loan amount. 10. The sale deed was executed on 14.06.2019. However, the allegations of subsequent harassment and abuse are primarily against the other accused, not against accused No.1. Moreover, the deceased committed suicide on 21.07.2023, more than four years after the sale deed was executed. 11. A coordinate bench of this Court in Yuvaraj vs. State of Karnataka, Kalaburagi (Crl. RP No. 200056/2022, dated 09.08.2024) observed, at paragraph 22, that the Apex Court in S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, held that in the absence of proof of mens rea, along with an active or direct act leading to suicide, and in the absence of evidence that the alleged act was intended to drive the victim to commit suicide, an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would not be made out. 12. The Apex Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan & Another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 873, relying on Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, elaborated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 on the essential ingredients required for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, including: • Convincing proof of incitement to suicide; • Mere allegations of harassment being insufficient unless such acts compelled the victim to commit suicide; • The offending actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide; • The presence of mens rea in the accused’s actions; • A continuous course of conduct that diminished the deceased’s self-esteem and led to suicide; • Whether the victim was hypersensitive and whether the accused’s actions would have driven an ordinary person to suicide; • The necessity of examining each case on its own facts. 13. Further, in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, the Apex Court reaffirmed its decision in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Another, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, where it held that words like “go and die” uttered during a heated argument, followed by the victim’s suicide, were casual remarks that did not establish the requisite mens rea. It was emphasized that such words, in isolation, cannot be presumed to have been intended to drive the victim to suicide. 14. In the present case, the last incident involving the petitioner occurred in 2019, while the deceased committed suicide in 2023. Therefore, there is no proximity between the alleged - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4010 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2023 incident and the act of suicide., and the essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are conspicuously absent with respect to accused No.1. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of process of law. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Spl. SC/ST No.54/2023, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, are hereby quashed. 16. The trial Court shall proceed against the other accused in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. The observations in this order are solely for the purpose of adjudicating this petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56