- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102287 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102289 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102290 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102342 OF 2025 IN CRL.P NO. 102287/2024 BETWEEN: MALLESHAPPA ALIAS MAHESHAPPA S/O HEMAPPA BISALALLI AGE 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BENAKANKONDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DIST: BAGALKOTE R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 580 011. 2. SMT. SUMA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.58, SHRI SUMUKHA, BANASHANKARI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI - 581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.11/2024 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE-SHEET BEARING NO.27/2022 DATED 15.07.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 306, 504 AND 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P NO. 102289/2024 BETWEEN: SANGANAGOUDA S/O MAHABASANAGOUDA MALAGOUDAR, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BENAKANKONDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK DIST: HAVERI - 581 115 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DIST: BAGALKOTE R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 580 011. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 2. SMT. SUMA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.58, SHRI SUMUKHA, BANASHANKARI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI - 581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.11/2024 (CRIME NO. 57/2020 NARAYANAPURA PS)AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE-SHEET BEARING NO.27/2022 DATED 15.07.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 306, 504 AND 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/A4 IS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P NO. 102290/2024 BETWEEN: NAGANAGOUDA S/O SHIDDALINGAPPA GURULINGAPPAGOUDRA AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BENAKANKONDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI - 581 115. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DIST: BAGALKOTE R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 580 011. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 2. SMT. SUMA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.58, SHRI SUMUKHA, BANASHANKARI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI - 581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.11/2024 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE-SHEET BEARING NO.27/2022 DATED 15.07.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 306, 504 AND 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P NO. 102342/2025 BETWEEN: HANUMAGOUDA S./O BHARAMA HUDEDA AGE 66 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VTC, CHIKKERUR, PO: CHIKKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI - 581 111. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DIST: BAGALKOTE R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER DHARWAD BENCH - 580 011. 2. SMT. SUMA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.58, SHRI SUMUKHA, BANASHANKARI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI - 581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATISH M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.11/2024 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE-SHEET BEARING NO.27/2022 DATED 15.07.2022 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 306, 504 AND 149 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.57/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code( the ‘IPC’, for short). 2. Heard Smt. Vaibhavi Inamdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Girija Hiremath, learned High - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Satish M.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioners are said to be the agriculturists, who have availed loan from Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (‘Bank’ for short). On a suspicion of transactions in the said Bank were fraudulent and the amount were misappropriated, one R.K.Kulkarni, who was working as a Manager at Halageri Branch, Ranebennur, was held to be enquired by the accused No.1, who was the Assistant Manager (Vigilance), at the Branches at Sadalaga and Chikkerur. It transpires that, on a particular day, accused No.1, who investigates into the bank transactions and the misappropriation of bank amount, he insults the said R.K.Kulkarni in presence of other staff members and the bank customers and uttered the words that he would loose his job. After the said incident, on a fateful day, 01.05.2020, R.K.Kularni dies by committing suicide leaving a death note that accused Nos.1 to 6 are responsible for his death. The wife of the deceased registers a FIR before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER jurisdictional police station and the respondent – police based upon the death note, registers a crime against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 504 of the IPC in Crime No.57/2020. The police after conduct of investigation, file a charge sheet against all the accused. It is the filing of the charge sheet, that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions. 4. The petitions having been entertained, the further proceedings before the concerned Court remained stayed by an order of this Court dated 15.01.2025, qua the petitioners. 5. Smt. Vaibhavi Inamdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment of this Court in the Crl.P.No.101061/2020, disposed on 31.07.2023, concerning accused No.1. None of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is present in the case at hand, as there is neither abetment nor instigation for commission of suicide by R.K.Kulkarni. The petitioners, who are identically placed as accused No.1, are also entitled to the same relief as is granted to accused No.1. There are no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER allegations against these petitioners for them having uttered or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the very registration of the crime is an abuse of process of law is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant would refute the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are directly involved in the crime of abetment and seeks a direction for continuation of further proceedings before the concerned Court against the petitioners. In the light of the further proceedings being stayed by this Court, the matter is not proceeded and seeks for continuation of the same. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and contend that the matter is still pending before the concerned Court. He would also submit that the death note indicates the names of the petitioners and the petitioners have to face trial and come out clean. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels and have perused the material on record. 9. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute. This Court in Crl.P.No.101061/2020, disposed on 31.07.2023, concerning accused No.1 has quashed the proceedings on the following reasons: “9. A perusal at the complaint or the facts, as narrated hereinabove, would unmistakably indicate that no ingredients as is necessary under Section 107 of IPC for an offence under Section 306 to be driven home, is present in the case at hand even to its remotest sense. The petitioner has performed his duty, as was directed, being an Assistant Manager(Vigiilance Unit), and submitted his report. The report leads to the death of R.K.Kulkarni, not immediately but after six months. If this be the fact, it is ununderstandable as to how the offence under Section 306 of IPC can even be alleged against the petitioner. If further investigation is permitted to continue in Crime No.57/2020, it would run foul on catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue. The Apex Court in the case of Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC online SC 737 has held as follows: “9. “Abetment” involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 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. 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, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 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 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC 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 306 IPC.” 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) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER “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) “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: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 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 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 482 CrPC.” - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8658 CRL.P No. 102287 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102289 of 2024 CRL.P No. 102290 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER In view of the fact that the allegations made against these petitioners in the subject petitions are identical to the allegations made against accused No.1 and the fact that further proceedings against accused No.1 is obliterated by this Court in the afore-quoted order and therefore, on the same reasoning and the observations, these petitioners are also entitled for obliteration of the proceedings before the concerned Court. Further proceedings if permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. ii) The FIR and the complaint registered by respondent No.1 - police in Crime No.57/2020 against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 504 of the IPC stands quashed qua all the petitioners. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3/CT: BHK