- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1745 CRL.P No. 103887 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103887 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAREGOUDA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA G AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. VEERAPUR VILLAGE, POST. CHITAGINAL H. VEERAPPA, KOPPAL DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY THE HCGP, DHARWAD THROUGH THE GANGAVATHI POLICE STATION-580011. 2. SAVITHA W/O. MAHANTESHGOWDA MALIPATIL AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JIRAL, KALGUDI, KUVEMPUT NAGAR, GANGAVATHI-583227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN ON 19.08.2022 IN CC NO. 2777/2022 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.01 13:32:36 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1745 CRL.P No. 103887 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has approached this Court challenging the criminal proceedings. 2. The prosecution alleges that the husband of the de facto complainant had borrowed a loan for the purchase of five cars. Although the deceased was regularly paying monthly installments, the petitioner allegedly abused him, pressured him to repay the loan, and repeatedly threatened to stage a sit-in protest outside his house. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the deceased was unable to repay the loan for a period of 6 to 8 months. 3. On 16.04.2021, the petitioner allegedly called the deceased over the telephone, pressured him to repay the loan amount, and told him that he should die. On the same day, the deceased returned home after consuming poison and informed his wife that he had done so due to the alleged harassment by the petitioner. 4. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statements of the deceased’s wife, brother, and two drivers under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even assuming the allegations to be true, they do not satisfy the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1745 CRL.P No. 103887 of 2022 essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIROnline 2020 SC 845. 6. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State contended that the charge sheet materials clearly disclose that the petitioner, who was a Recovery Officer at Shriram Transport Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd., had pressured the deceased to repay the loan. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide, thereby constituting an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. He further submitted that the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner should be considered at the stage of trial and not in this petition and, accordingly, sought the dismissal of the petition. 7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties, the following is observed: The allegation against the petitioner, who was a Recovery Officer, is that he harassed the deceased to repay the loan and allegedly told him to “go and die” if he failed to make the payment. However, there is no material evidence to substantiate the claim that, on 16.04.2021, the petitioner called the deceased over the telephone and pressured him to repay the loan. Apart from the self-serving statements of interested witnesses, there is no independent material to establish that the petitioner exerted undue pressure on the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sanju alias - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1745 CRL.P No. 103887 of 2022 Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, held that mere words uttered by the accused, such as “go and die,” are not prima facie sufficient to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the following essential elements must be satisfied: i. There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. ii. There must be a suicidal death and an act of abetment leading to it. iii. There must be continuous harassment by the accused before the death. iv. Such harassment or provocation must be proximate to the time of the deceased’s death. 9. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, at para-23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is that there must be an allegation of either a direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient unless - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1745 CRL.P No. 103887 of 2022 there are specific acts by the accused that compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive, and the allegations attributed to the accused are not of such a nature that they would ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, every case must be examined based on its own facts and circumstances, considering the surrounding factors that may have influenced the actions of the accused and the mental state of the deceased.” 10. In the instant case, the essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner are conspicuously absent. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in SC No.4/2024 pending on the file of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35