1 Reserved on : 20.02.2025 Pronounced on : 07.03.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.101512 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . SUJATHA W/O. BHEEMAPPA NARAYANI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF VAJAPEY COLONY, NOW AT: ASUTI, TALUK: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG. 2 . MANJU S/O NAGAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER, RESIDENT OF ASUTI, TALUK: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG. 3 . IRAPAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF ASUTI, TALUK: RON, 2 DISTRICT GADAG – 583 231. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DISTRICT BAGALKOT – 580 011. 2 . SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. HOLEYAPPA NARAYANI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION SELF-EMPLOYED, RESIDENT OF SECTOR NO.14, NAVANAGAR, TALUK AND DISTRICT BAGALKOT – 587 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD A.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1; SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 191/2023 (FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO. 98/2021 OF NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT BAGALKOTE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 306, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC. 3 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Bagalkot, arising out of crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Sharad V.Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The 2nd respondent is the complainant, mother of one Bheemappa Narayani. Bheemappa Narayani was married to the 1st 4 petitioner and the other two petitioners are the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of Bheemappa Narayani, the deceased. The son of the complainant and the 1st petitioner are husband and wife. It appears that the relationship between the two had floundered and the wife had initiated certain proceedings against the husband/deceased. On 21-10-2021, it is the case of the complainant, that her son committed suicide unable to bear the torture of the wife and her family members. On the commission of suicide, a case of unnatural death comes to be registered. A little thereafter, i.e., one month to be precise on 20.11.2021, the younger son of the complainant, at about 9.30 a.m. is said to have been using the mobile phone of his brother, who was by then deceased. He comes across some call records which are said to have been recorded in the mobile phone. It was found that the 2nd petitioner used to call the deceased regularly so as the other petitioners were harassing the deceased son of the complainant. The wife is said to have threatened the deceased of dire consequences. 5 4. Based upon the said voice recording, the complainant then reaches the doors of the jurisdictional police and registers the complaint. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306, 504 r/w. 149 of the IPC. The investigation commences and accused 1 to 7 approach this Court seeking quashment of FIR registered against them in Writ Petition No.105991 of 2023. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Police file a charge sheet only against the present petitioners – accused No.1 to 3, dropping accused Nos.4 to 7, who had approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners are now calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023, for the afore-quoted offences, which is registered against them. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the wife of the deceased, mother-in-law and the 2nd petitioner have duly called the son of the complainant and tortured him by using the phrase ‘go and die’. Unable to bear the said torture, the son of the complainant commits suicide. It is the submission of the learned counsel that there is no case made 6 out for abetment to suicide as mere utterance of words ‘go and die’ would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In this regard, he would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court which would bear consideration qua their relevance. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners were every day calling the son of the complainant and torturing him. Every time when the call comes they were hurling abuses and one such abuse was “you are useless go and die” and have also threatened with dire consequences, if the husband wants to get the wife back. He would submit that call record details of making several calls to the deceased are part of the charge sheet. He therefore, submits that the petitioners have abetted the commission of suicide of the son of the complainant and seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in contending that the Police after investigation have filed the charge sheet with the finding that the petitioners have 7 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it is for them to come out clean in a full-blown trial is his submission. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between accused 1 to 3 with the deceased son of the complainant is as stated above. The son of the complainant commits suicide on 21-10-2021. There were no suspects. An unnatural death is registered by the Police on the incident. A month later, it appears that the younger son of the complainant was handling the mobile phone of the deceased; comes across some videos and call record details of continuous conversation between the petitioners and the deceased. One such call record is said to have been seen/heard by the complainant in which the wife of the deceased and his mother-in-law would hurl abuses on the deceased by saying “go and die” or do whatever he wants. With this video, the 2nd respondent registers the complaint of abetment 8 to suicide. Since the entire issue triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: “UÉ, || . ಎ. ಐ. ಾ ೇಬರು, ನವನಗರ ೕ ಾೆ. ಾನೇ, ಇದರ ಾನು ೕಮ ಚಂದವ# ಗಂಡ ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ*, ವ+ಾ : 58 ವಷ-, ಉ/ೋಗ : 0ೌರ2ಾ3-ಕಳ6, ನಗರಸ8ೆ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ, <ಾ : =ಂದೂ ಚಲ>ಾ?, ಾ|| ೆಕ@ರ ನಂ.14, ನವನಗರ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ Aಾ॥ B॥ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ ತಮD ಗ*ೕಕರಣ ಾF GೕFದ ಮರು ೇH2ೆ ಏೆಂದೆ :- ಾನು ?ಾಂಕ : 21/10/2021 ರಂದು ನನJ ಮಗಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ* ಈತನು ೇಣು ಾM2ೊಂಡು ೖತ>ಾದ ಬOೆP ತಮD ಮುಂ/ೆ ಾನು Q+ಾ-R 2ೊS@ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ನನJ Q+ಾ-RಯನುJ V#ೕಕWV2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ಮಗನ ಾXನ ಕುWತು ಅಾ#8ಾXಕ ಾವZ ಎಂದು ಪಕರಣ /ಾಖಲ ಾF2ೊಂFದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ?ಾಂಕ : 20.11.2021 ರಂದು ಮುಂ<ಾೆ 09.30 ಗಂ\ೆಯ ಸುಾWOೆ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ ೖತ Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ* ಈತನು ಉಪ]ೕ^ಸು UದT _.ಸಂ.9110409086 ೇದTನುJ ನನJ ಇೊJಬ` ಮಗಾದ ಾಗಪ) ತಂ. ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ* ಈತನು _9ೈಲನುJ ಹುಡು2ಾF/ಾಗ 2ೈOೆ VMbದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW ಾಗಪ) ಈತನು ೖತ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತನ _9ೈಲನುJ ಪWೕಸcಾ^ 2ೆಲdಂದು ಕೆಗಳ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಯ eೇಖರೆ+ಾ^ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW _9ೈಲದಯ eೇಖರೆOೊಂಡಂತಹ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ ಾಗಪ) ಈತನು 2ೇHV2ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ನಮOೆ ೇHದTರ ಸದW ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗಾದ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತನ _9ೈOೆ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^ Kೕಮಪ)ನ ಈತನ ೆಂಡ +ಾದ ಸು<ಾAಾ ಇವಳ ಸ ೋದರಾದ ಮಂಜು ತಂ. ಾಗಪ) ತಳ>ಾರ ಾ॥ ಅಸೂS Aಾ। ೋಣ ಈತನ _ೕ.ನಂ.7483813149 ೇದTWಂದ ಸತತ>ಾ^ ಾತಾF2ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ದುT ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಸದW ಕೆಗಳ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ 2ೇಳcಾ^, ಅದರ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ ೖತ Kೕಮಪ) ಈತGOೆ ಆತನ ೆಂಡ +ಾದ ಸು<ಾAಾ, ಅವಳ ಸ ೋದರ ಮಂಜು, Aಾh+ಾದ ಈರಪವ#, ಸ ೋದW ಸತವ#, ಅವಳ iಕbಮD&ಾದ ೇಣು2ಾ ಾಗೂ iಕbಪ)ಾದ ಸಂಗಪ), ಾ।। ಇಬ`ರೂ ಹುನಗುಂದ ಅ/ೇ Wೕ ೖತ ಮಗನ ೆಂಡ ಯ ಸಂಬಂR+ಾದ 9 ಫMೕರಪ) (kಕರು) ಇವೆಲರೂ ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ೖತ ಮಗೊಂ?Oೆ Gರಂತರ>ಾ^ lೕGನ ಾತಾF ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ =ಂೆ GೕFದTಲ/ೇ ನನJ ಮಗ ತನJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ಕHV2ೊಡು ಅಂAಾ ೇHದT2ೆb ನನJ ಮಗGOೆ ಇಲ ಸಲದ Wೕ ಯ ಅ>ಾಚ ಶಬTಗHಂದ 9ೈ/ಾF ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF "Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು ನಮD ನಮD ನಮD ನಮD ಹ Uರ ಹ Uರ ಹ Uರ ಹ Uರ GನJ GನJ GನJ GನJ ೆಂಡ ಯ ೆಂಡ ಯ ೆಂಡ ಯ ೆಂಡ ಯ ಬOೆP ಬOೆP ಬOೆP ಬOೆP ಇೊJD ಇೊJD ಇೊJD ಇೊJD 2ೇHದೆ 2ೇHದೆ 2ೇHದೆ 2ೇHದೆ GನJ GನJ GನJ GನJ Bೕವ Bೕವ Bೕವ Bೕವ ಸ=ತ ಸ=ತ ಸ=ತ ಸ=ತ pಡುವZ?cಾ pಡುವZ?cಾ pಡುವZ?cಾ pಡುವZ?cಾ" ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ Bೕವದ Bೕವದ Bೕವದ Bೕವದ ಧಮM ಧಮM ಧಮM ಧಮM ಾMದ ಾMದ ಾMದ ಾMದ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಇವನ ಇವನ ಇವನ ಇವನ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ Xಷಯ ನಮD ನಮD ನಮD ನಮD ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ಮುಂ/ೆ ೇHದನು ೇHದನು ೇHದನು ೇHದನು. 2ಾರಣ 2ಾರಣ 2ಾರಣ 2ಾರಣ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಸಂಾರದ ಸಂಾರದ ಸಂಾರದ ಸಂಾರದ Aೊಂದೆಗಳ6 Aೊಂದೆಗಳ6 Aೊಂದೆಗಳ6 Aೊಂದೆಗಳ6 ಇರುತU>ೆ ಇರುತU>ೆ ಇರುತU>ೆ ಇರುತU>ೆ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ನಮOೆ ನಮOೆ ನಮOೆ ನಮOೆ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ Hದು Hದು Hದು Hದು ಬಂ?ತು ಬಂ?ತು ಬಂ?ತು ಬಂ?ತು. ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ _9ೈr _9ೈr _9ೈr _9ೈrದನ ದನ ದನ ದನ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆಗಳನುJ 2ೇH 2ೇH 2ೇH 2ೇH ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ ಎಲರೂ ಎಲರೂ ಎಲರೂ ಎಲರೂ 2ಾರಣರು 2ಾರಣರು 2ಾರಣರು 2ಾರಣರು ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ ನಂತರ Hhತು Hhತು Hhತು Hhತು. ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ತಮD ತಮD ತಮD ತಮD ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆಯ ಮೆಯ ಮೆಯ ಮೆಯ ಇಟು@2ೊಂಡು ಇಟು@2ೊಂಡು ಇಟು@2ೊಂಡು ಇಟು@2ೊಂಡು ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಮಗGOೆ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ 2ೊಡುವ 2ೊಡುವ 2ೊಡುವ 2ೊಡುವ ಉ/ೆTೕಶ?ಂದ ಉ/ೆTೕಶ?ಂದ ಉ/ೆTೕಶ?ಂದ ಉ/ೆTೕಶ?ಂದ Gರಂತರ Gರಂತರ Gರಂತರ Gರಂತರ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ =ಂೆಯನುJ =ಂೆಯನುJ =ಂೆಯನುJ =ಂೆಯನುJ GೕF GೕF GೕF GೕF ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bಗು0ೆ) Bಗು0ೆ) Bಗು0ೆ) Bಗು0ೆ) ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ಾF ಾF ಾF ಾF "Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು 9ೇ2ಾದರೂ 9ೇ2ಾದರೂ 9ೇ2ಾದರೂ 9ೇ2ಾದರೂ ಾF2ೊ ಾF2ೊ ಾF2ೊ ಾF2ೊ ನನJನುJ ನನJನುJ ನನJನುJ ನನJನುJ ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಏನು ಾF2ೊಳoಲು ಾF2ೊಳoಲು ಾF2ೊಳoಲು ಾF2ೊಳoಲು ಆಗುವZ?cಾ ಆಗುವZ?cಾ ಆಗುವZ?cಾ ಆಗುವZ?cಾ" ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ೇHದುT ೇHದುT ೇHದುT ೇHದುT, ಅsೆ@ೕ ಅsೆ@ೕ ಅsೆ@ೕ ಅsೆ@ೕ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮೃತ ಮೃತ ಮೃತ ಮೃತ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ಮಗನ ೆಂಡ Oೆ ೆಂಡ Oೆ ೆಂಡ Oೆ ೆಂಡ Oೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ ೇHದ ಆರೂ ಆರೂ ಆರೂ ಆರೂ ಜನರು ಜನರು ಜನರು ಜನರು 9ೆಂಬಲ?ಂದ 9ೆಂಬಲ?ಂದ 9ೆಂಬಲ?ಂದ 9ೆಂಬಲ?ಂದ ಅವಳ6 ಅವಳ6 ಅವಳ6 ಅವಳ6 ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗೊಂ?Oೆ ಮಗೊಂ?Oೆ ಮಗೊಂ?Oೆ ಮಗೊಂ?Oೆ uೆಾJ^ uೆಾJ^ uೆಾJ^ uೆಾJ^ ಸಂಾರ ಸಂಾರ ಸಂಾರ ಸಂಾರ ಾಡ/ೇ ಾಡ/ೇ ಾಡ/ೇ ಾಡ/ೇ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ Aೊಂದೆ 2ೊಡುAಾU 2ೊಡುAಾU 2ೊಡುAಾU 2ೊಡುAಾU ಬಂ?ರುAಾUೆ ಬಂ?ರುAಾUೆ ಬಂ?ರುAಾUೆ ಬಂ?ರುAಾUೆ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ _9ೈr _9ೈr _9ೈr _9ೈr ಸಂ8ಾಷೆ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆ ಸಂ8ಾಷೆ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಾಗಪ) ಈತGಂದ ಈತGಂದ ಈತGಂದ ಈತGಂದ Hದು Hದು Hದು Hದು ಬಂ?ರುತU ಬಂ?ರುತU ಬಂ?ರುತU ಬಂ?ರುತU/ೆ/ೆ/ೆ/ೆ. ಇವೆಲರು ಇವೆಲರು ಇವೆಲರು ಇವೆಲರು GೕFದ GೕFದ GೕFದ GೕFದ Mರುಕುಳ?ಂದ Mರುಕುಳ?ಂದ Mರುಕುಳ?ಂದ Mರುಕುಳ?ಂದ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ ಮಗಾದ Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) ತಂ/ೆ ತಂ/ೆ ತಂ/ೆ ತಂ/ೆ ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ಾನVಕ>ಾ^ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ೊಂದು2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF ಾF ಾF ಾF ಮರಣ ಮರಣ ಮರಣ ಮರಣ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ೊಂದುವಂAೆ ಪuೋದೆ ಪuೋದೆ ಪuೋದೆ ಪuೋದೆ GೕF GೕF GೕF GೕF ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ ಾXOೆ 2ಾರ*ಭೂತಾ^ರುAಾUೆ 2ಾರ*ಭೂತಾ^ರುAಾUೆ 2ಾರ*ಭೂತಾ^ರುAಾUೆ 2ಾರ*ಭೂತಾ^ರುAಾUೆ. 2ಾರಣ ನನJ ಮಗನ ಾXOೆ ೕcೆ ೇHದ ಎಲರೂ ೊೆOಾರರು ಇರುAಾUೆ. ಆದTWಂದ ಈ ೕcೆ ೇHದ 7 ಜನರ ೕcೆ ಸೂಕU 2ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರು^ಸ9ೇ2ೆಂದು ನನJ ಮರು ೇH2ೆ ಇರುತU/ೆ. ಾ>ೆಲರೂ ಮೆಯ XuಾWV2ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಈಗ ಾೆOೆ ಬಂದು ೇH2ೆ Gೕಡಲು ತಡ>ಾ^ರುತU/ೆ. ಸwಳ : ನವನಗರ-9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24/11/2021 ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ/- ಓ. ೇ>ೇ ಸW ಅ/ೆ.” (Emphasis added) 10 The complaint is that the complainant has seen the video that the wife had hurled abuses on the husband/deceased and the mother- in-law had threatened that if the deceased asks about the wife, he will not be spared. It is the life threat what is averred in the complaint. When was the threat and on what date, nothing of that sort comes about in the complaint. This complaint becomes the crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 against 7 persons. 10. The investigation would commence and 4 of them are dropped from the array of accused while filing the charge sheet against the present petitioners. Summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows: “17. 2ೇVನ 2ೇVನ 2ೇVನ 2ೇVನ ಸಂ{ಪU ಸಂ{ಪU ಸಂ{ಪU ಸಂ{ಪU ಾಾಂಶ ಾಾಂಶ ಾಾಂಶ ಾಾಂಶ ಸGJR 2ೋಟ- ಸDಳ Vೕಯ ನವನಗರ ೕ ಾೆಯ ಹ?T 0ೈM 9ಾಗಲ2ೋಟ ನವನಗರ >ಾಜ0ೇh 2ಾcೋGಯ°èರುವ ಮೆ ನಂಬರ 135 ೇದTರ uಾಜ-ೕಟ 2ಾಲಂ ನಂಬರ 12 ರ, ನಮೂದ ನಮೂದ ನಮೂದ ನಮೂದ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ: 1 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ ೖತ Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) Kೕಮಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ೊ&ೆಯಪ) ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ಾಾಯ* ವ+ಾ ವ+ಾ ವ+ಾ ವ+ಾ 30 ವಷ- ವಷ- ವಷ- ವಷ- ಇವನ ಇವನ ಇವನ ಇವನ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ೆಂಡ ಇದುT ಇದುT ಇದುT ಇದುT ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ: 2 ಮತುU ಮತುU ಮತುU ಮತುU 3 ೇದವರು ೇದವರು ೇದವರು ೇದವರು ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ಅHಯ ಅHಯ ಅHಯ ಅHಯ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ಅAೆU ಅAೆU ಅAೆU ಅAೆU ಇದುT ಇದುT ಇದುT ಇದುT ಸದWಯವರು ಸದWಯವರು ಸದWಯವರು ಸದWಯವರು 9ಾಗಲ2ೋSOೆ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋSOೆ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋSOೆ 9ಾಗಲ2ೋSOೆ ಬಂ/ಾಗ ಬಂ/ಾಗ ಬಂ/ಾಗ ಬಂ/ಾಗ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ ಪ/ೇ Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು ಭೂ3ಯ ಭೂ3ಯ ಭೂ3ಯ ಭೂ3ಯ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ಇರ9ೇ|ಾ ಇರ9ೇ|ಾ ಇರ9ೇ|ಾ ಇರ9ೇ|ಾ Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು ಇರುವದWಂದ ಇರುವದWಂದ ಇರುವದWಂದ ಇರುವದWಂದ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ಮಗHOೆ ಮಗHOೆ ಮಗHOೆ ಮಗHOೆ 8ಾರ 8ಾರ 8ಾರ 8ಾರ ಆಗು U+ಾ ಆಗು U+ಾ ಆಗು U+ಾ ಆಗು U+ಾ Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು Gೕನು ಸತುU ಸತುU ಸತುU ಸತುU ೋಗು ೋಗು ೋಗು ೋಗು ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ೖತನ ಮನV}Oೆ ಮನV}Oೆ ಮನV}Oೆ ಮನV}Oೆ 9ೇ<ಾರ 9ೇ<ಾರ 9ೇ<ಾರ 9ೇ<ಾರ ಆಗುವ ಆಗುವ ಆಗುವ ಆಗುವ ಾOೆ ಾOೆ ಾOೆ ಾOೆ ಾತಾFದುT ಾತಾFದುT ಾತಾFದುT ಾತಾFದುT ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಅಲ/ೇ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಆೋ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ ಅನಂ: 1 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೇದವಳ6 ೆWOೆOಾ^ ೆWOೆOಾ^ ೆWOೆOಾ^ ೆWOೆOಾ^ ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ತವರು ಮೆOೆ ಮೆOೆ ಮೆOೆ ಮೆOೆ ೋ/ಾಗ ೋ/ಾಗ ೋ/ಾಗ ೋ/ಾಗ ೖತನು ೖತನು ೖತನು ೖತನು ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ನನJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ೆಂಡ ಯನುJ ಕHV ಕHV ಕHV ಕHV 2ೊF 2ೊF 2ೊF 2ೊF ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ ಅಂAಾ _ೕ9ೈr _ೕ9ೈr _ೕ9ೈr _ೕ9ೈr ಮು~ಾಂತರ ಮು~ಾಂತರ ಮು~ಾಂತರ ಮು~ಾಂತರ ೇHದT2ೆb ೇHದT2ೆb ೇHದT2ೆb ೇHದT2ೆb ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಜನ ಜನ ಜನ ಜನ ಆೋತರು ಆೋತರು ಆೋತರು ಆೋತರು ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ಕೂF2ೊಂಡು ದೂರ>ಾ*ಯ ದೂರ>ಾ*ಯ ದೂರ>ಾ*ಯ ದೂರ>ಾ*ಯ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ೖತGOೆ ೕಂದ ೕಂದ ೕಂದ ೕಂದ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ೕcೆ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ ಾನVಕ =ಂೆ =ಂೆ =ಂೆ =ಂೆ, Mರುಕುಳ Mರುಕುಳ Mರುಕುಳ Mರುಕುಳ GೕF GೕF GೕF GೕF, ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ ಸಂಾWಕ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ, 9ೇ<ಾರ>ಾಗುವಂAೆ 9ೇ<ಾರ>ಾಗುವಂAೆ 9ೇ<ಾರ>ಾಗುವಂAೆ 9ೇ<ಾರ>ಾಗುವಂAೆ 11 ಾತಾFದTWಂದ ಾತಾFದTWಂದ ಾತಾFದTWಂದ ಾತಾFದTWಂದ ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ದುಸDಂ ದುಸDಂ ದುಸDಂ ದುಸDಂÃರೆ ರೆ ರೆ ರೆ GೕFದTWಂದ GೕFದTWಂದ GೕFದTWಂದ GೕFದTWಂದ ಮನೊಂದು ಮನೊಂದು ಮನೊಂದು ಮನೊಂದು Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bೕವನದ Bಗು Bಗು Bಗು Bಗು¥Éì ೊಂ? ೊಂ? ೊಂ? ೊಂ? ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ: 20-10-2021 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ 11 ಗಂ\ೆhಂದ ಗಂ\ೆhಂದ ಗಂ\ೆhಂದ ಗಂ\ೆhಂದ ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ ?ಾಂಕ: 21-10-2021 ರರರರ 9ೆಳ^ನ 9ೆಳ^ನ 9ೆಳ^ನ 9ೆಳ^ನ 10-00 ಗಂ\ೆಯ ಗಂ\ೆಯ ಗಂ\ೆಯ ಗಂ\ೆಯ ನಡುXನ ನಡುXನ ನಡುXನ ನಡುXನ ಅವRಯ ಅವRಯ ಅವRಯ ಅವRಯ ತನJಷ@2ೆb ತನJಷ@2ೆb ತನJಷ@2ೆb ತನJಷ@2ೆb Aಾೆ Aಾೆ Aಾೆ Aಾೆ ಉಲು- ಉಲು- ಉಲು- ಉಲು- ಾM2ೊಂಡು ಾM2ೊಂಡು ಾM2ೊಂಡು ಾM2ೊಂಡು ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಆತDಹAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾF2ೊಳ6oವಂAೆ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಾFದ ಅಪಾಧ ಅಪಾಧ ಅಪಾಧ ಅಪಾಧ. ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 306, 504, 506 ೆವZ ೆವZ ೆವZ ೆವZ 34 ಐV ಐV ಐV ಐV....” (Emphasis added) The finding in the charge sheet is that, on 21-10-2021 the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. The reason is that, the wife and the mother-in-law have tortured the deceased husband. There are no details even in the charge sheet as to when was the torture and what was the kind of torture. All that is narrated in the summary of the charge sheet is that, the deceased was depressed. He was depressed with his life and had committed suicide. The aforesaid finding in the charge sheet or the complaint, in the considered view of the Court, would in no way become ingredients of abetment to suicide. 11. In the light of the offence being the one punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, I deem it appropriate to notice the said provision. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows: 12 “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.” For an offence to become punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, abetment must be present. What is abetment is defined under Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows: “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 takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to do the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to 13 facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” Interpretation of abetment of Section 107 of the IPC to become Section 306 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in plethora of judgments has considered this issue while laying that for an abetment to suicide, there must be goading and proximity to the death of the deceased. In the case at hand, the allegations against the petitioners are absolutely nebulous. There are no allegations as to when the abuses were hurled and what were the dates of video. On such vague findings in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there was coxing or goading as is necessary for an offence of abetment to suicide. The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P.1 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that the appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306IPC. 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 14 11. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused the deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also. 12. 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] had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-13) “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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 306IPC is not sustainable. 15 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306IPC.” 14. In the judgment in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306IPC. Para 25 of the judgment reads as under : (SCC p. 197) “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 15. In the judgment in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor [Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158] this Court has considered the scope of the provision under Section 482CrPC and has laid down the steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC. Para 30 containing the four steps read as under: (SCC pp. 348-49) 16 “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482CrPC: 30.1. Step one : whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two : whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three : whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 16. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by this Court, we have carefully scrutinised the material on record and examined the facts of the case on hand. Except the 17 statement that the deceased was in relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that the appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact, at earlier point of time when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her father went to the police station complained about the calls which were being made by the deceased to the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of SI Manoj Kumar recorded on 5-7- 2018. In his statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the father along with the appellant went to the police post and complained against the deceased who was continuously calling the appellant and proposing that she should marry him with a threat that he will die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed on record and in absence of any material within the meaning of Section 107IPC, there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 306IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. 17. In view of the same, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant by merely recording a finding that in view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482CrPC.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 31. She denied the suggestion of the defence that on the date of the incident she had taken her children to the school and that when she had returned to the house at 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216 18 10:30 AM, she found her deceased sister X in an unconscious condition. 32. PW-2 further stated that they did not keep any poisonous medicine in the house. She did not find any bottle containing poison near the bed of the deceased. She denied a suggestion that she along with her another sister Shantha and her husband Diwakar had taken her sister X to Karuna Nursing Home. 33. PW-2 stated that she saw her father in the Mission Hospital at 5:00 PM on 06.07.2000. She had not told and informed her father about the incident relating to her sister. Till the dead body of X was taken, her father was in the hospital. 34. PW-2 stated that while it was true that the accused was a married person, she did not know that he had married two months prior to the incident. There are residential houses around the house. They were having good relation with the neighbours. The accused was having a chit fund when he used to reside in the house. PW-2 was also a member of the said chit fund. She denied the suggestion that they had tried to marry the deceased with the accused when he used to reside in their house and that the accused had declined to marry her deceased sister which was the reason for him to leave the house. She also denied the suggestion that they had chit fund amount to be repaid to the accused. She further denied the suggestion that the deceased might have committed suicide for some other reason and that the accused was falsely implicated as he had refused to marry the deceased. 35. Diwakar is the husband of Shantha, the second sister of the deceased. Diwakar is PW-3. In his examination in chief, he stated that at the time of her death the deceased was residing with PW-2 at Vinayakanagar. PW-2 was also the sister of his wife Shantha. 36. On 05.07.2000 at about 09:30 AM, the deceased X had telephoned his wife Shantha and told her that she had consumed poison. At that time, he was present near his wife Shantha. According to PW-3, he and his wife Shantha 19 immediately went to the house of the deceased at Paduvarahalli. The deceased talked with his wife Shantha. They shifted the deceased X to Nirmala Hospital and from there to Mission Hospital. On 06.07.2000, the deceased died in the hospital during the night time. 37. He stated that his wife Shantha had told him that the accused was responsible for the suicidal death of the deceased. 38. In his cross-examination PW-3 stated that before the death of X his wife Shantha had told him about the accused being responsible for X consuming poison. When they had gone to the house of X and were taking her to the hospital, X had told his wife Shantha that due to the harassment of the accused she had consumed poison. Earlier thereto he did not know this fact. He had seen the accused when he used to reside in a portion of the house as a tenant. The accused had vacated the house two years prior to the incident whereafter he had neither seen the accused nor knew about his whereabouts. 39. PW-3 denied the suggestion put forward by the defence that he had stated before the police that the deceased X was in an unconscious condition when they had reached her house and that his wife had not told him that the accused was the reason for the deceased consuming poison. However, he stated that he did not hear what the deceased X had told his wife Shantha. 40. Shantha herself deposed as PW-4. She stated that on 05.07.2000 at about 11:00 to 11:15 AM. the deceased had telephoned her and told her that while she was returning home from the school after dropping the children the accused accosted her on the way. He threatened her that she should marry him and in case of her refusal he would kill her by pouring acid on her. Because of this she had consumed poison to finish her life to bring an end to the matter. Immediately PW-4 and her husband PW-3 came to the house of the deceased. … … … 20 47. He further stated that he had not told the police about the PW-2 telling him that the accused had threatened his sister. He did not know the details as to how his sister X had consumed poison and the amount of poison. He denied a suggestion that the accused was not responsible for the suicidal death of X and that it was because of their enmity with the accused that they had filed a false complaint against the accused. 48. Dr.Devdas P.K. PW-13 was the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 07.07.2000. He stated that on examination of the dead body he found multiple injection marks present in front of both the elbows. The front of the right wrist showed superficial linear incised injury measuring 5cm in length which was partially healed. He further stated that the stomach, small intestine and contents, liver, kidney and blood were preserved and sealed and thereafter sent for chemical analysis. On 09.01.2001, he received the chemical analysis report dated 10.10.2000. The report showed presence of organophosphorus compound in the viscera. Death was due to respiratory failure as a result of consumption of substance containing organophosphorus compound. 49. In his cross-examination PW-13 stated that organophosphorus compound is a pesticide, however, the quantity of the poison in the viscera of the blood of the deceased was not mentioned in the FSL report. The amount of organophosphorus could be detected during the treatment of the injury. The brain would be conscious till the poison effected the brain. PW-13 could not say the time when the deceased had consumed poison.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of KANCHAN SHARMA and KUMAR and the unequivocal fact that there is absolutely no finding that would even pin down these petitioners to a solitary incident of coxing or goading, the offence of 21 abetment to suicide is not made out even in its remotest sense. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2023 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot arising out of crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 of Navanagar Police Station, stand quashed. SD/- ____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA nvj CT:MJ