- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102484 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. JANARDHAN S/O SHRI. RANGASA KABADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR MAHENDRAKAR CIRCLE, GADAG – 582 101. 2. NAGARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA KALAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG – 582 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINOD S. SHINGADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MULGUND POLICE STATION, GADAG, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O. BHEEMAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/AT: KANAVI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: GADAG, KARNATAKA – 582 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (528 OF BNSS), 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 26.12.2023 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 PETITIONERS AS INITIATED BY MULGUND POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.69/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 SPL.C(SC/ST) NO.42/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 34, 504, 306 OF IPC, 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’, for short) praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 26.12.2023 and entire proceedings in Spl.C(SC/ST)No.42/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). 2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in column No.17 of the chargesheet is that deceased- Bhimappa S/o Mahadevappa Talawar aged about 62 years - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 belonging to schedule tribe had borrowed Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- as hand loan for his family necessity from accused Nos.1 to 4 and the accused persons were insisting the deceased by calling him to Gadag to repay the said loan amount stating that loan plus interest of Rs.2,00,000/- is due and if he does not repay the loan amount, they will take his life. The accused persons told the deceased that if he is not able to repay the loan amount, “go and die” and abused him by taking his caste name. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide in his land by consuming poison on 15.10.2023 at 06.00 a.m., and chargesheet is filed against the petitioners and two others for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act. 3. Based on the said chargesheet, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance by order dated 28.12.2023 and registered Spl.C(SC/ST)No.42/2023 and it is pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 Judge, Gadag. The said order on cognizance and proceedings of the said case are sought to be quashed in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the act of the petitioners asking the deceased to repay the loan amount borrowed by him from the petitioners and asking him “to go and die”, if he is not able to repay the loan amount, does not amounts to abetment to commit suicide. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Shashirekha V/s State of Karnataka and Others.1 6. He further submits that except hearsay statement of wife of the deceased, there are no other materials in the chargesheet with regard to offences under 1 2023 INSC 402 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 Sections 504, 506, and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. There is no specific date and time, when the accused persons abused the deceased by taking his caste name and giving him life threat has been stated either by the first informant or any other witnesses. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondentNo.1 would contend that the petitioners and other accused have insisted the deceased to repay the amount borrowed with interest and threatened him and asked him “to go and die”, if he is not able to repay the loan amount. The said act of the accused persons amounts to abetment to commit suicide. The petitioners and other accused abused the deceased taking his caste name and gave him life threat, it attracts the other offences alleged in the chargesheet. With this, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 8. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the chargesheet materials. 9. The accusation against the petitioners is that they insisted the deceased to repay the amount borrowed with interest and asked him “to go and die”, if he is not able to repay the loan amount. This Court in the case of Mangala Gowri V/s State of Karnataka2 has observed as under: “16. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet 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 the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 2 2023 SCC Online Kar 64 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 17. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigate another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. Sate of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it is held as under: “………….. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion……….” 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. Sate (Government of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 wherein it is observed as under: “17. Thus to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.). 18. Similarly, “urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on is inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.” 20. The appellant/accused insisted the deceased Raju to repay the money borrowed by him. There was no intention on the part of the appellant/accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The appellant/accused was interested in getting back the money lent to the deceased. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person as abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 21. How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein it is observed as under: “16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance” 22. The person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acture or chronic ailments and so on and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 need not be due to abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 178. 23. PW-1 the brother of the deceased Raju in his cross examination has stated that the deceased had purchased the lorry by taking loan and he has sustained loss in his lorry business. The very said admission given by PW-1 itself show that the deceased has barrowed money for purchase of lorry and he has sustained loss in the said lorry business. That may be one or the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 wherein it is observed as under: “44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 25. The appellant/accused has lent money to the deceased Raju. She was interested in getting back the said money. She had no intention of taking the life of the deceased Raju. Therefore, there is no clear mens rea on the part of the appellant/accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision also observed that “Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation” 26. In the similar situation that the deceased committed suicide as the accused insisted the deceased to repay the loan amount, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Arjuna v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : AIR 2019 SC 43 has observed reads as under: “8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under section 306 I.P.C.” 10. The petitioners have lent money to the deceased-Bhimappa. The petitioners are interested in getting back the said money. The petitioners had no intention of taking the life of the deceased-Bhimappa. Therefore, there is no clear mens rea on the part of the petitioners to abet the deceased to commit suicide. 11. Having advanced money to the deceased, the petitioners have uttered some abusive words and threatened him to take his life; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Considering all the chargesheeet material, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not made out. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 12. The other offences alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act. Except the statement of wife of the deceased who has filed first information, there are no other materials regarding the said offences. What the first informant has stated in her complaint that her husband told her that the petitioners and other accused are insisting him to repay the amount borrowed and abused him taking his caste name and threatened to take his life. The date, time and place of the said aspect have not been stated. The said statement by the first informant is a hearsay statement. Considering the said aspects, the proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. 13. In the result, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings against the petitioners in Spl.C(SC/ST)No.42/2023 pending on the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6663 CRL.P No. 102484 of 2024 file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag are quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE VMB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62