- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103410 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHANKRAPPA S/O. ISHAPPA @ ISHWARAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON-582209, DIST. GADAG. 2. SMT. KASTHUREVVA W/O. ISHAPPA @ ISHWARAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON-582209, DIST. GADAG. 3. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O. ISHAPPA @ ISHWARAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. MILK DAIRY BUSINESS, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON-582209, DIST. GADAG. 4. SRI. NINGABASAPPA S/O. ISHAPPA @ ISHWARAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON -582209, DIST. GADAG. 5. SRI. IRANNA S/O. ISHAPPA @ ISHWARAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON -582209, DIST. GADAG. 6. SMT. LAXMI W/O. NINGABASAPPA GURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON -582209 DIST. GADAG. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 7. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. SHARANAPPA GURAMMANAVR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON -582209, DIST. GADAG. 8. SMT. RATNAVVA @ RATNA W/O. IRANNA GOURAMMANAVAR, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON -582209, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RON POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING –DHARWAD. 2. SRI. BHIMANAGOUDA S/O. DYAMANAGOUDA HIREGOUDER, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCCP. ENGINEER, R/O. MENASAGI, TQ. RON-582209, DIST. GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, GADAG IN SC NO.51/2021 AND IN ARISING OUT OF RON P.S. CRIME NO.156/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 306 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 ARE CONCERNED, AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners who are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) are before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is the husband of deceased-Shweta and other accused are the family members of the accused No.1. On 07.12.2020 at about 8.00 a.m. deceased-Shweta took the son of accused No.4 to the terrace of the house to play, the son of the accused No.4 fell down from the terrace and at that time, all the accused came to the spot and abused deceased-Shweta and also asked her to ‘Go and Die’. However, it is alleged that unable to bear the harassment, deceased-Shweta hanged herself to death. It is further alleged that the accused used to subject the deceased-Shweta to cruelty both mentally and physically. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the utterance of the word ‘Go and Die’ in the bit of anger, does not satisfy the essential element to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. He further submitted that there is no specific overtact as against each of the accused as to how and in what manner subjected the deceased-Shweta to cruelty both mentally and physically so as to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P (Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar).1 5. In response learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the deceased-Shweta hang herself to death unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused and also due to abetment by accused and therefore, the veracity of the allegation can be gone into at the time of trial and not at this stage and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the following are noted: 7. The marriage of the deceased-Shweta was solemnized on 13.05.2013 from the date of marriage till her death, there is no allegation against these petitioners subjected deceased-Shweta to cruelty both mentally and physically and continuously, so as to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Even accepting that the accused uttered the words ‘Go and Die’ is under the spur of movement, when the son of the accused No.4 fell down from the terrace who was taken to the terrace by deceased- Shweta. The utterance of the words whether, ‘Go and Die’ constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC was examined 1 (2002) 5 SCC 371 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 and point for consideration before Apex Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar, wherein, with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P2 (Swamy Prahaladdas), it was held that mere the word uttered by the accused to deceased-Shweta to ‘Go and Die’ is not yet prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the catina of decision has held that to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the following essential elements must be satisfied: a. There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. b. There must be suicide and death and abetment thereof. c. There must be a continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death. d. Such irritation and annoying must be proximity to the time of occurrence of the death. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (Geo Varghese)3 at para 22 held as under: 2 1995 Supp(3) SCC 438 3 2021 SCC online SC 873 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, 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 otherwise 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 and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased. 10. In the instant case, it is alleged that the accused uttered the words ‘Go and Die’ to the deceased when the son of the accused No.4 fell from the terrace in the presence of deceased and therefore, the same does not satisfy the essential element to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 11. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:286 CRL.P No. 103410 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in SC No.51/2021 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74