Partly allowed

Smt. Kamala W/O Devendrappa Hombal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022CRL.P/101185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash an FIR alleging abetment of suicide by torture and harassment due to illicit relationship. The court held that mere allegations of harassment without proof of incitement or compulsion do not constitute offences under Section 306 IPC.,

What did the court decide?

The impugned First Information Report registered in Crime No.45/2022 by Dharwad Rural Police is hereby quashed.

Smt. Kamala W/O Devendrappa Hombal Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101185 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101185 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. KAMALA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA HOMBAL, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. MANAGUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARCHANA A.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. SHIVANAND GORAJANAVAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MANAGUNDI VILLAGE,

¶13

TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESP. NO.1-STATE) (BY SRI A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE F.I.R. DATED 13.03.2022 AGAINST PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.45/2022 OF DHARWAD RURAL P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT DHARWAD, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC.

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 101185 of 2022

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The first information report is registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused/petitioner who was having illicit relationship with the husband of complainant used to torture the deceased for money and unable to bear the same, the husband of complainant committed suicide.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that even accepting the allegations on the face of it would not constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, hence she submits that the registration of the F.I.R. in the absence of any essential ingredients to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, registration of F.I.R. is without any substance. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶23

the case of Geo Varghese Vs. The State of Rajasthan

¶24

and Others , reported in AIR 2021 SC 4764 .

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 101185 of 2022

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶28

respondent No.2-complainant submits that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with the deceased and the deceased unable to bear the harassment and also the petitioner/accused having induced the deceased to commit suicide, the registration of F.I.R. is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶29

Learned HCGP appearing for the 1^st respondentState would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Complainant.

¶30

Even accepting the allegation made in the F.I.R. on the face of it would not constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese ( supra ) at paragraph No.22 has held as follows :

¶31

“22. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 101185 of 2022

¶34

suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the Accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the Accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the Accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the Accused and the psyche of the deceased.”

¶35

In the instant case, there is no allegation of either

¶36

direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence and there is no allegation that the petitioner/accused compelled the commission of suicide and also there is no allegation that the petitioner/accused

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 101185 of 2022

¶39

induced the deceased to commit suicide. In absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the registration of F.I.R. is without any substance. In view of the same, the continuation of the investigation would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of law since the probability of the Police laying charge sheet is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The Criminal Petition is disposed off.

¶42

The impugned First Information Report

¶43

registered in Crime No.45/2022 by the Dharwad Rural Police is hereby quashed.

¶44

CKK

¶45

Sd/- JUDGE

Smt. Kamala W/O Devendrappa Hombal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamala W/O Devendrappa Hombal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Nagaveni D/O Mahantayya Matapati Vs the Managing Director

Best School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Sri Veerarani Kittur Chennamma School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

Mr Vikram S Kasbekar Vs State of Karnataka

Laxman M. Dappinnavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Hero Moto Corp Limited Vs State of Karnataka