- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 266 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI KARTHIK VELU S/O LATE B.K. SHANMUGAVELU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO G3 RONAK APARTMENT 2ND MAIN CKC GARDENS OFF MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AJAY KADKOL T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY - 560 096. 2. G.K. DEVANAND S/O LATE GOVINDARAJ CHETTIYER AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO.761, 18TH CROSS 23RD MAIN IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. (AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHENNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI.N.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN CASE IN S.C.NO.320/2018 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ACCUSED U/S 227 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING THE RELIEF OF HIS DISCHARGE IN THE CASE REGISTERED AGAINST HIM FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S 306, 417, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused no.1 in S.C.No.320/2018 pending before the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside order dated 24.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.320/2018 dismissing his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC seeking discharge. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was charge-sheeted in Crime No.58/2017 registered by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 417, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 420 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After the case was committed, the same was numbered as S.C.No.320/2018 before the Trial Court. In the said proceedings, petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC seeking discharge. The prosecution had opposed the said application. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary ingredients so as to invoke the charge-sheeted offences are not found in the present case. In the death note of the deceased, which is part of the charge sheet, no allegation whatsoever is found which would attract the charge-sheeted offences against him. Merely for the reason that the proposed marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was cancelled, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased. The mother of the petitioner as against whom certain allegations are made in the death note of the deceased, has died during the pendency of this case. Since, no prima facie material is found - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 as against the petitioner, he cannot be asked to stand trial for the charge-sheeted offences. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2/defacto complainant have argued in support of the impugned order. They submit that without any reason the proposed marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was cancelled after their engagement ceremony was performed. In the death note of the deceased, there are certain allegations against the petitioner which would attract the charge-sheeted offences. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. In the charge sheet which is filed against the accused, it is alleged that the marriage engagement ceremony of the petitioner with deceased Nagalakshmi was performed on 08.05.2016 and subsequently, there was a demand by the mother of the petitioner (accused no.2) for dowry and since the family members of the deceased had refused to give dowry as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 demanded by accused no.2, it is alleged that accused no.2 had stated that marriage between the petitioner and Nagalakshmi cannot be performed. It is further alleged that when the family members of the deceased asked accused no.1 not to cancel the marriage, he allegedly abused them and asked to go and die, and thereafter, notices were issued regarding cancellation of marriage. After receipt of the said notices, deceased had committed suicide on 28.02.2017 by hanging. It is further alleged that deceased had left behind a death note before committing suicide. 7. The death note of the deceased is part of the charge sheet material. Perusal of the said death note would go to show that she has not made any allegation against the petitioner or his family members about any demand made by them for payment of dowry as alleged in the charge sheet. On the other hand, she had alleged that accused no.2 who is the mother of the petitioner was not happy with the marriage proposal between the petitioner and accused, and therefore, she was not agreeable for the marriage. She has not made any allegation against the petitioner for cancellation of marriage, and on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 other hand, the entire allegation in the death note is found against accused no.2 who is blamed by the deceased for the cancellation of marriage between her and the petitioner. 8. In the notice/communication dated 27.02.2017 which was forwarded by the petitioner to the father of the deceased, it is mentioned that deceased herself had decided to cancel the marriage for the reason that she had problem with the family of the petitioner and she wanted a stable life, and even in the notice/communication which was issued to the deceased on the same day, it is mentioned that the marriage was being cancelled since deceased was not interested in the marriage. 9. In the death note of the deceased, no exception has been taken by her as to the contents of the notices issued by the petitioner informing about cancellation of marriage. On the other hand, she has stated that when petitioner makes decision, no one can change the same. She has stated that she feels hurt that she could not live a happy life with him what they dreamt all along. She has not stated that petitioner was the cause for she taking the drastic decision to commit suicide. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 10. Section 306 of IPC reads as under: "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." 11. Necessary ingredients so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC in the present case is prima facie absent. Charge sheet material do not prima facie point out that petitioner had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 12. From a reading of the death note of the deceased, it is apparent that after the marriage engagement ceremony was performed, there was lot of exchange of communications between petitioner and the deceased, and ultimately, it was decided to cancel the marriage. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the act committed by the accused should have direct nexus with the death and such act should have either instigated or abetted the deceased to commit the suicide. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 13. In the case of PRABHU VS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANOTHER - AIR Online 2024 SC 246, in paragraphs 10 to 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge: 10.1. Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438: (AIROnline 1995 SC 94), Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371: (AIR 2002 SC 1998), Paragraph 12] 10.2. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that 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. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618: (AIR 2001 SC 3837), Paragraph 20] 10.3. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605: (AIR 2010 SC 1446), Paragraph 20]: (AIR 2010 SC 1446) 10.4. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707: (AIR 2010 SC 512), Paragraph 1214] 10.5. The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628]: (2010 AIR SCW 5101) 11. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the present case in question, even if we take the case as a whole and test the prosecution case on a demurrer, it could not be said that the actions of the accused instigated Kousalya to take her life or that he conspired with others to ensure that the person committed suicide or any act of the appellant or omission instigated the deceased resulting in the suicide. 12. Broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life. It could not be said that the appellant by breaking up the relationship with Kousalya and by advising her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents, as he himself was doing, had intended to abet - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 the suicide of Kousalya. Hence the offence under Section 306 is not made out." 14. In the present case, though deceased has not made any allegation against the accused about they demanding dowry after performance of the engagement ceremony between her and the petitioner, in the first information which is filed by her father, such an allegation is found and even in the charge sheet, the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act have been invoked. Merely for the reason that for certain reasons which are not forthcoming on record or for the reasons which was beyond the control of the parties, the marriage was cancelled, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention from the inception to cancel the marriage and cheat the deceased and her family members. The prosecution has, therefore, not made out a case even for the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 420 IPC. 15. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.PC. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2699 CRL.RP No. 266 of 2023 16. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed in S.C.No.320/2018 by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside, and the petitioner is discharged of the charge-sheeted offences. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK