- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7276 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI S D KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.107, 8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARBHAVI, BDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 072 2. SRI. HARISH S .K S/O S.D KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.107, 8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 072 3. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA P H S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PRESENT ADDRESS, PADUVAGERE VILLAGE, AMRUTURU HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR -572 111 PERMANENT ADDRESS, R/AT NO.3/9, NAGARAHOLE, NAGARA MAHADESHWARA NAGARA, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU -560 091 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K A CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYURDURGA P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA V T W/O P T RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.189, SRI. HARINILAYA MSR NAGARA, 8TH CROSS, BENGALURU -560 054 AND PANDUVAGERE VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR 572 111 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1; SRI MANJUNATH.B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN C.C.No.8977/2022 (CR.No.14/2022) OF HULIYURDURGA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W 34 OF IPC NOW S.C.No.99/2023, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.99/2023, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, registered for offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: Respondent No.2 is the complainant, who is the wife of one P.T.Ramaiah. The petitioners and P.T.Ramaiah are all family members who are fighting a litigation with regard to partition of immovable property. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 register a suit in O.S.No.180/2021 seeking partition and separate possession of the property. The said suit is registered on 17.04.2021. After about nine months of the conduct of the suit, the husband of the 2ndrespondent viz., P.T.Ramaiah is said to have committed suicide leaving behind a death note alleging that the reason for commission of suicide is the litigation that is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 drawn by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking partition of the property. On the death of the husband of the complainant a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.14/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file the charge sheet against these petitioners. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1,and Sri Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners and the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 are family members who are before the Court seeking partition and separate possession of the property. Mere filing of a case against the husband of the complainant arraigning him as a defendant in the suit, and his commission of suicide nine months after the institution of the suit would not mean that the petitioners have abetted the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 commission of suicide against the husband of the complainant. He would therefore submit that none of the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC is met in the case on hand for further proceedings to be permitted to continue. He would seek quashment of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that, the petitioners had assaulted the deceased even before the suit was instituted, and the death note brings about several factors of this nature and the proceedings must not be quashed and the petitioners must be directed to undergo trial and come out clean. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the counsel for complainant in drawing the Court's attention to the statement and the death note which clearly pins down these petitioners for abetment to suicide. Therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed and the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. The afore narrated facts are matter of record. The relationship between the parties is again a matter of record. The husband of the complainant is the brother of the petitioners is not in dispute. They are at loggerheads with regard to a partition suit that is instituted in O.S.No.180/ 2021 seeking partition and separate possession. The suit comes to be instituted on 17.04.2021. The institution of the suit appears to have driven the husband of the complainant into frustration and on 30.01.2022, the husband of the complainant hangs himself and commits suicide leaving behind a death note. 9. The death note though indicates that the registration of the case seeking partition of the property had led the deceased to frustration and his death by suicide, it would not be enough circumstance to bring home the ingredients as is necessary under Section 107 of the IPC, which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 is necessary as ingredient for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows: “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.” Section 107 of the IPC deals with abetment. Section 306 of the IPC punishes one who abets the commission of suicide. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows: “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.” 10. The interpretation of Section 306 or Section 107 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long as jurisprudence is replete with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time, which have been followed by this Court as to when it would become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC to permit trial in such cases. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 10.1. The Apex Court in the case of KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 18. Section 306 IPC defines abetment of suicide which reads as under: “306. 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.” 19. It provides for the punishment for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, ‘abetment’ of suicide is an essential element for punishing a person for an offence under Section 306 IPC. 20. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and it reads 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.” 12024 SCC OnLine SC 3541 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment. 22.‘Instigation’ is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act. 23.This Court has repeatedly observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide. 24. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, a three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger uttered-‘You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like’. Thereafter, the wife committed suicide. The Court, after examining the meaning of instigation which is an essential element for abetment of suicide, observed that such words, uttered out of emotion, do not constitute mens rea and do not amount to intentionally inciting the other party to actually do an act which may result in the commission of self- killing/suicide. 25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and it was observed as under: “43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44.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. 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 disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu v. State represented by Inspector of Police. 28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute ‘Instigation’ it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. 29.There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused-appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide. 30. If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused-appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide. 31. Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where no guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established. (Emphasis supplied) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 10.2. The Apex Court in the case of MAHENDRA AWASE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH2 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 12.As is clear from the plain language of the sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly — 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. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] , the appellant remarked to the deceased that “go and die” and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that : (SCC p. 439, para 3) “3. … Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events.” 14. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that 2 (2025) 4 SCC 801 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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. 15. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 712, para 12) “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable.” (emphasis supplied) 16.In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306IPC. 17. M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 1088] , wherein it was held as under : (M. Mohan case [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p. 637, para 41) “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] 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 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.” 18. Thereafter, this Court in M. Mohan [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] held : (SCC p. 638, para 45) “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 306IPC 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.” (emphasis supplied) 19.As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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. 20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar.” (Emphasis supplied) 10.3. The Apex Court in the case of LAXMI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference: “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.” We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below: “107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who— 32025 SCC OnLine SC 120 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. 9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed: “8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide. … 13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.” 10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below: “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.” 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of ‘instigation’. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court observed: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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.” 12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., wherein the Supreme Court held: “43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.” 13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the High Court and Trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant. We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC. There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide. 14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 10.4. The Apex Court in the case of ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA4, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 13.It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh.Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20: “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 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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.” [underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis] 14.This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, wherein it was held so: “If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 15.Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh was a case of elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the boy, later acquitted on the girl's testimony in his favour. The boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. While upholding the conviction entered into by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of the words ‘abetment’ and ‘instigate’: “43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark.” Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised while also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village setting, also belonging to the poor strata of society, was threatened and teased constantly, resulting in her resort to the extreme step. The accused would have known that his acts would lead to the drastic consequence. 16.Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal also held: “Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 17. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan emphasised the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide.Looking at Section 306, it was held so: “… 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.” - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 18.Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) spoke on the suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which were complex and multifaceted (sic). It was held that: “Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.” 19.Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat was a case in which the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he was still alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note in which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having driven him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 20.Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner: “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 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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 of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” 21.It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. 22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel's back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306.” (Emphasis supplied) - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 10.5. The Apex Court in the case of GEETA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA5, 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 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] 52025 SCC OnLine SC 1938 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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 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 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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.” 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.” (Emphasis supplied) - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 10.6. The Apex Court in the case of YADWINDER SINGH ALIAS SUNNY v. STATE OF PUNJAB6, 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:— “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 62025 SCC OnLine SC 2332 - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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:— “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 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 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) 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.” (Emphasis supplied) If the facts obtaining in the case at hand is pitted against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC cannot sustain on mere allegations of harassment, without there being any overt act by the accused proximate to the commission of suicide by the deceased. The petitioners instituting a suit against the deceased for the partition of property cannot constitute the ingredients of the punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 11. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court quoted hereinabove, if proceedings are permitted to continue, notwithstanding the names of these petitioners in the death note, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. I deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to obliterate the proceedings against these petitioners. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:443 CRL.P No. 7276 of 2023 ii. The proceedings in S.C.No.99/2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42