- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16193 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. JAYARAM REDDY, S/O GANTLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.1200, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANAGARA, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563 122. 2. MR. PRATHAP REDDY, S/O JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.1200, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANAGARA, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563 122. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.ARVIND B REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, OPP. TO BMTC BUS STAND, KADUGODI COLONY, KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 067. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 562 001. 2. MRS. KAMALAMMA C, W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1196/3, SHWETHA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; MS.VAISHNAVI VIBHUTE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARAN L JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.474/2025 DATED 20.09.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 108, 3(5) OF BNS 2023 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 P.S. PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 No.474/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 108 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Ms. Vaishnavi Vibhute learned counsel for Sri. Sharan L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: The complaint's son and petitioner No.2 - accused No.2 have had a transaction. The transaction goes wrong. Petitioner No.2 is said to have instituted certain proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) in C.C.No.738/2019. The cross-examination of the complainant's son happens on a particular day in the year 2025. One month after the said cross-examination, it transpires that the complainant's son records a video of harassment on account of repeated filing of cases by the accused and commits suicide. The axe of abetment falls on the petitioners, the father and the son. This - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 Court in terms of its order dated 27.04.2026 had interdicted the proceedings. The said interim order is subsisting even today. 4. Learned senior counsel, Sri. M.T.Nanaiah appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that there is neither goading, abetment nor instigation for commission of suicide. Mere filing of a case under Section 138 of the Act against the son of the complainant for the cheque that he had issued, which had been dishonoured, would not mean that it would become abetment to suicide. Learned senior counsel submits that the ingredients as necessary to prove abetment is not even present even to its remotest sense. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the matter is still at the stage of investigation; it is a case of abetment to suicide and this Court must not obliterate the proceedings at this stage. Investigation in the case at hand is a must. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 8. The transaction between the two i.e., the son of the complainant and accused No.2 is a matter of record. The proceedings instituted by accused No.2 against the complainant's son in C.C.No.738/2019 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is again a matter of record. The proceedings are instituted in the year 2019. The proceedings go on till the year 2025 and on a particular day, the cross-examination of the complainant's son gets concluded. One month thereafter, the complainant records the video and dies. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners subjected the complainant's son to continuous harassment by instituting proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. Filing of a case, exercising the rights available under the statute by the accused, can by no stretch of imagination, become abetment, goading or instigation that is necessary to prove the case for abetment to suicide as obtaining under Section 108 of the BNS. The son of accused No.1 has instituted proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on the score that the cheque that was issued by the complainant's son had been dishonoured. The father of accused No.1 has been dragged into these proceedings without any rhyme or reason, merely because he is the father of accused No.1. There is no transaction, there is no conversation between the father and the complainant's son. 10. For an offence to become punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 45 of the BNS is necessary to be present. Sections 45 and 108 of the BNS read as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 "45. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (a) instigates any person to do that thing; or (b) 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 (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. …. …. …. 108. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Section 45 of the BNS deals with abetment and if the abetment is proved under Section 45 of the BNS, it would become the ingredient of the offence under Section 108 of the BNS. 11. Jurisprudence is replete with the Apex Court delineating what would become the ingredients of abetment is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 obtaining under Section 45 of the BNS or Section 107 of the erstwhile regime - the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 108 of the BNS or Section 306 of the IPC. 11.1. The Apex Court in the case of GEETA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 17. For the purpose of examining whether the ingredients of Section 306 are attracted, we take the prosecution case as it is. Taken at its highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While the victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the appellant's family have also had a grievance about the victim and her family scolding the children of the appellant's household. There is no doubt that not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant's party. Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today the appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323. She stands acquitted even for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506. The State has not preferred any appeal. 18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This Court in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under: “3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …” [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] 19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. 21. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed the dictum in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under: “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:— 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 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.” 22. This Court in Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents held as under:— “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 23. Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant's family and the victim's family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide.” 11.2. Again, the Apex Court in the case of YADWINDER SINGH ALIAS SUNNY v. STATE OF PUNJAB2, while considering the entire spectrum of the law has held as follows: “…. …. …. 15. By now the position of law insofar as abetment of suicide is concerned is well settled. Even if we accept the entire case put up by the prosecution as it is without adding anything or subtracting, we are of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are borne out. 16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:— “13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:— 22025 SCC OnLine SC 2332 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 “306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:— “107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets 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. Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:— - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:— “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 the Supreme Court is 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 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.” (emphasis supplied) - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide. 18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC.” 11.3. Later, the Apex Court, in the case of BALAJI JAISWAL v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. The charge as framed against the appellant is under Section 306 and in alternate under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. In this regard, we may refer to a recent decision 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 602 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 in Prakash (supra) to which one of us (K.V. Viswanathan, J.) was a party. Therein, the appellants had sought discharge from the criminal proceedings filed under Section 306 of the Penal Code. Dealing with the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code, it was held as under: “13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. xxxxxxxxxxxx 18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat10, this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows: “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well- established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” 19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh11, laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:— - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Xxxxxxxxxxx 26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.” 11. From the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that for sustaining a charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, it has to be shown that the accused persons had contributed to the suicide by the deceased through some direct or indirect act. Section 107 of the Penal Code has thereafter been referred to hold that there ought to be some instigation or incitement that would reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide, thus, leading the victim to such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. There ought to be some material to indicate a positive act of instigation, which is a crucial component of abetment. Instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person has been held to be the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. The act of instigation also has to be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus or a chain to indicate that the act of suicide was the direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person. Incidentally, the decision in Ramesh Kumar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent has been considered and relied upon in Prakash (supra). 12. The material forming part of the charge sheet would, therefore, have to be examined keeping in mind the above perspective. Existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence would be necessary. On going through the various statements recorded by the prosecution, the same indicate that deceased Komal was addicted to liquor and that the appellant and Komal used to have liquor together. The son of the deceased, Aakash, had stated that whenever his father used to drink from his money, Revati Bai used to scold him. However, when the appellant used to bring liquor for him, she did not object. In his subsequent statement recorded after about five months from the incident, he suspected that there were illicit relations between his mother and the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 appellant. Statements of other family members and neighbours indicate the addiction of Komal to liquor. Except such statements and general allegations of illicit relationship between Revati Bai and the appellant, there is no material whatsoever to indicate any instigation or incitement at the instance of the appellant that could lead to Komal committing suicide. On 05.05.2024, the appellant had been to the house of Komal and they had liquor together between 09 : 00 P.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. There is no material whatsoever indicating any act of instigation or incitement or abetment by the appellant. The suicide was stated to have been committed in the morning of 07.05.2024. No material whatsoever as regards the proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the deceased, and his committing suicide is available on record. It, thus, will have to be held that the requirements of Section 107 of the Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case. 13. Even if we proceed on the premise that there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by Komal is absent. As held, to bring home a charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, the act of abetment would require some positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. There is no allegation that the appellant had instigated Komal to commit suicide or that he had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. Further, there is no material on record to infer that Komal was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the absence of such mens rea on the part of the accused being apparent from the face of record, the charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code cannot be sustained. 14. We, therefore, find that even after accepting the entire material on record at its face value, the ingredients of Section 306 of the Penal Code are not satisfied. Continuation of such criminal proceedings would, therefore, be a futile exercise resulting in the absence of process of law. We may reiterate what this Court said in paragraph 9 in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat12 are as follows:— - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 “In the prosecution under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial.” The proceedings, therefore, deserve to be quashed. The High Court failed to examine the material on record in the light of the law laid down in this regard. It, therefore, erred in not quashing the proceedings. The ratio of the decision in Dammu Sreenu (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent is clearly distinguishable as it arises from a challenge to the conviction of the appellant therein based on the evidence on record.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) If the elucidation of law laid down by the Apex Court is considered qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the unmistakable inference would be that the subject crime cannot be permitted to be investigated into. The ingredients necessary under Section 45 of the BNS are completely lacking in the case at hand, as there is neither instigation nor goading or proximity to the commission of suicide by the complainant's son. Mere filing of a case against a person cannot mean that it would become abetment to suicide. It is no doubt true that a life is lost by an unfortunate event. The complainant's son breathes - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34469 CRL.P No. 16193 of 2025 last would not mean that the petitioners would be held liable for abetment to suicide on the death of the son, as it is trite that human mind is an enigma, can sway any way like a pendulum. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned crime in Crime No.474/2025 pending before the A.C.J.M, Bengaluru Rural stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33