- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103143 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ULIVEPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA SATENAHALLI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR, R/O. KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH OLD HUBBALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. GEETA W/O. MOHAN KUNDAGOL, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KOTILING NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-587115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 IN OLD HUBLI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.266/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306 R/W. 149 OF I.P.C. ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.7 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.226/2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, Hubli - Dharwad City for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 149 of IPC. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant is a resident of Gokula Road, Hubli. She is having husband and two male children. Both children are married. She is having two daughters-in-law. Recently, her son - Nikhil married Preethi on 18.12.2022. After the marriage, they were residing together. The daughter-in-law went to her parents' house on account of Shravana. During the said period, the nude photographs of her daughter-in-law were stated to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 shown to her son, namely, Nikhil, who is the husband of Preethi. 3. The son of the complainant had learnt that his wife had an affair with another person. Therefore, a meeting was held with the parents of the daughter-in- law of the complainant. In the said meeting, it was decided unanimously that they should go for a mutual divorce. 4. On 02.11.2023, the complainant and her family members were summoned by the respondent police. Therefore, they went to the police station around 12.00 in the noon. There was a negotiation between the two families in the police station. 5. It is further alleged that Jayashree Chalawadi, ASI, Keshwapur police, who is arrayed as accused No.6 had directed the son of the complainant to settle the issues and pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with other items which were given at the time of marriage to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 daughter-in-law and threatened the son of the complainant that if he fails to bring the amount on the following day, a dowry case would be registered against all the family members. Being annoyed by the said threatening, the son of the complainant had committed suicide on the following day. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against all the members who participated in the negotiation process. 6. The respondent police on receiving the said complaint, registered an FIR in Crime No.226/2023 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 149 of IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the FIR. 8. Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 9. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not made out against the present petitioner. In fact, he was not present at the time the alleged negotiation had taken place in the police station. 10. It is further submitted that even on reading the averments of the entire complaint, which do not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner being a head of the police station, had instructed accused No.6 to settle the matter. As per the direction of the petitioner, the matter has been settled between the parties and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 accused No.6 is stated to have insisted the son of the complainant to bring the amount on the following day without fail. Being frustrated and annoyed by the act of the police and also other members who participated in the said meeting, the son of the complainant had committed suicide. Therefore, the case against the petitioner is made out. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and prays to reject the petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It appears from the record that, the petitioner was working as a Police Inspector at Keshwapura police station. It is alleged that, he had instructed accused No.6 to settle the matrimonial issues between the deceased and his wife. The accused No.6 is stated to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 have insisted the deceased to bring the amount as settled between the parties on the following day by threatening him. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHENDRA AWASE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, held that the plain language of Section 306 of IPC, would indicate that the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide or in other words, a person abets the doing of a thing, who, firstly, instigate to do that thing, secondly, engages one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, in an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy or in order to the doing of that thing, thirdly, intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing must be necessary. 1 (2025) 4 SCC 801 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 15. In another case, in the case of MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER2 held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person, as a result of that abetment, is required. It is further held that intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting section 306 of IPC. 16. Having gone through the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, in the present case, the petitioner was working as a Police Inspector, even assuming that he had instructed accused No.6 to settle the matrimonial issues, that itself cannot be construed as he has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, continuing the proceedings against the petitioner certainly would be an abuse of the process 2 (2010) 8 SCC 628 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16632 CRL.P No. 103143 of 2023 of law. Hence, it is appropriate to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 17. In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in Crime No.226/2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, Hubli Dharwad City against the petitioner, is quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent police to proceed with the case against other accused persons in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE VMB/CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11