Disposed

Sujit Mallappa Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2014CRL.P/100215/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of criminal petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for abetment of suicide. Held that facts were incomplete to ascertain intention of petitioners. Granted liberty to petitioners to approach Sessions Court for discharge.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off; liberty granted to petitioners to approach Trial Court for discharge.

Sujit Mallappa Patil Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100215/2014

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SUJIT MALLAPPA PATIL AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. OMKAR, PLOT NO.1175, SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELGAUM

¶9

MALLAPPA BABURAO PATIL AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. OMKAR, PLOT NO.1175, SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELGAUM

¶10

3 SUSHANT MALLAPPA PATIL AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. OMKAR, PLOT NO.1175, SAHYADRI NAGAR, BELGAUM

¶11

4 PRAVEEN MARUTI NAGANNAVAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR, R/O. PLOT NO.7282, SECTOR NO.10, M.M.EXTENSION,

¶12

ANJANEYA NAGR, BELGAUM ... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI M B GUNDAWADE, ADV. )

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD THROUGH MARKET POLICE BELGAUM

¶17

SHRI SHIVANAND S/O SANGAPPA ITAGI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. TARIHAL, TQ: DIST: BELGAUM ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1, SRI SANTOSH RAWOOT, ADV. FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, IN RESPECT OF MARKET POLICE, BELGAUM, IN P.S.CRIME NO.420/2013, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and

¶23

also the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶24

¶25

The present petition is filed seeking to quash

¶26

the entire proceedings in Crime No.420/2013 registered by Market Police, Belgaum for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶27

The brief factual matrix that arise for

¶28

registering of the case are that:

¶29

A person by name Shivanand Sangappa Itagi, lodged a complaint stating that one of the deceased by name Siddappa Basappa karagi was working as a salesman in Omkar Enterprises, Hindustan Unilever Distributors situated at APMC Yard, Belgaum. The said Omkar Enterprises were demanding Rs.6,00,000/- from the said Siddappa Basappa Karagi and his wife Sujata, with reference to some mis-deeds alleged to have been committed by the deceased Siddappa. In this regard, it is stated in the FIR that on 10.11.2013, the deceased

¶30

¶31

Siddappa and his wife Sujata along with the complainant (father of the complainant) and others went to the office of Omkar Enterprises and sought for 15-20 days time for making payment. In that regard, the said Omkar Enterprises demanded for security and accordingly the father of the complainant has executed a bond as security. In this regard, both the husband and wife felt highly humiliated. Further, it is stated that on 11.11.2013, both Siddappa and Sujatha, husband and wife committed suicide in their house by hanging. They have also left a death note, wherein they have implicated the owner of Omkar Enterprises by name Sujit M. Patil, Sushanth M. Patil and Praveen - Computer Operator in the said firm, are responsible for the commission of the suicide. It is also narrated in the death note that the petitioners have been demanding for Rs.7,00,000/- and in that context, they have assaulted and abused the said Siddappa and his wife with filthy

¶32

¶33

language and also they have stealthily snatched TVS Motor cycle and also the property documents from the father-in-law of the deceased Siddappa and also very particularly, it is stated that the accused persons have called upon the deceased Siddappa to send his wife for the purpose of keeping her for one month i.e. till the amount is repaid and thereby the petitioners and others have given so much of torture which made them to commit suicide.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage contends that if the averments of the complaint were translated into evidence, it is not corroborated by any other materials on record. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant’s father went along with the deceased and others to Omkar Enterprises on 10.11.2013, but they never stated the allegations made in the death note against these petitioners. He further contends that even such allegations in the death note

¶35

¶36

are translated into evidence that falls short to assess the exact intention of the petitioners, to say that the petitioners have given such torture to the deceased persons with an intention to drive them to commit suicide. He further contends that in order to prove the abatement of suicide, the act of the accused or petitioners shall come within the purview of Section 107 of IPC. The conduct of the accused persons should be considered by the court whether they have intended to torture even if it is admittecd only with an intention to extract the money of Rs.7,00,000/- from Siddappa or his wife or they had any other intention to drive them to commit suicide.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the petitioners also strenuously contended that Section 306 of IPC impose the responsibility on the prosecution to prove the intention to abate a person who has committed suicide. The intention of the accused play an important role. He

¶38

¶39

also drawn my attention to Section 107 of IPC which reads as follows:

¶40

“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

¶41

Firstly - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶42

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

¶43

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

¶44

First part and third part of Section 107 IPC are relevant so far as this case is concerned that is to say, the prosecution has to prove that the accused-petitioners abated doing of a thing by the deceased persons and they have instigated the deceased persons to do that particular act, the third part of the said provision says that the persons intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission of doing of that particular thing, that means to

¶45

¶46

say, the prosecution has to prove that the

¶47

accused/petitioners have intentionally aided by their act or an illegal omission, the commission of the suicide by the deceased persons.

¶48

In this particular case, the surrounding

¶49

circumstances have to be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining this particular intention. In my opinion, the entire charge sheet papers have to be analyzed and considered in order to appreciate whether the accused persons have really intended to drive the deceased persons to commit suicide or not. At this stage, the court is not having the entire charge sheet papers. The matter is still under investigation and the police are still investigating the matter. Even considering that all these factors are considered by the police and even if they file a charge sheet before the court, the court at the time of taking cognizance also has to look into these material aspects before taking cognizance. Even the

¶50

¶51

court takes the cognizance of the offences, the said offences are triable by the court of Sessions and before framing of the charges, the Sessions Court also has to hear in detail in order to ascertain whether there are sufficient materials to frame charges and proceed against the accused persons for trial.

¶52

In my opinion, when this court is not fully furnished with all the materials to consider and analyze facts to ascertain the real intention of the accused, as to whether their act or omission amounts to an instigation to the deceased persons to commit suicide. In my opinion, all these factors have to be considered before framing of the charges. In the above said circumstances, in my opinion, by providing liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court for their discharge by filing necessary application, the petition deserves to be disposed off. In the event of petitioners filing any such application for discharge, the learned

¶53

¶54

Sessions Judge has to provide an opportunity to both the prosecution and the accused persons and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶55

With these observations, the petition stands disposed off.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sujit Mallappa Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Mallappa Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benaka Sponge Iron Ltd. Vs Kamal Kumar Jain

Kumari Geeta D/O. Laxman Kammar Vs State of Karnataka

Subramani N C Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O. George Vs the State

C.S.Tubachi Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O. Mallappa Hakki Vs the State