Quashed

Sharath @ Sharath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023CRL.P/173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash proceedings for abetment of suicide (IPC 306/506 IPC). The single judge quashed the proceedings, holding that the murder charge requires clear mens rea and an active, direct act abetting suicide, which was not established by the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in S.C.No.49/2022 before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, were quashed with the acquittal of the petitioner by quashing operation.

Sharath @ Sharath Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28680 CRL.P No. 173 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 173 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHARATH @ SHARATH, S/O K.CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, WORKING IN FIRE OFFICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. R/AT BYBAKALONI NO.1, BAIRAPURA, ALURU POST, HASSAN – 34.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIKKAMAGALUR WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

SMT. INDRAMMA, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT RHS QUARTERS, HOUSING BOARD, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 23. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:28680 CRL.P No. 173 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.49/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 AND 506 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner who is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is before this Court.

¶23

The police after investigation laid the chargesheet. The summary of the charge sheet is that, the accused herein and the deceased daughter of the defacto complainant were in love with each other for two years. When the deceased was in the petitioner's room, the first daughter of the de faco complainant went near the room, noticed the slipper of the deceased near the room and knocked on the door, but they did not respond. After some time, the deceased came out of the room and when the first daughter of the complainant went along with the deceased to the room, the petitioner threatened with dire consequence and thereafter, the deceased and the petitioner were taken to the husband of the defacto complainant where he questioned the relationship and also their readiness of solemnization of their marriage. But the accused expressed his inability to marry her. The deceased on knowing that the accused was not willing to marry her, unable

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28680 CRL.P No. 173 of 2023

¶25

to bear the same, committed suicide. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. The defacto complainant though served with notice is not present before the Court or represented through her counsel.

¶27

The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that, to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the following essential ingredients must be satisfied:

¶28

i) There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

¶29

ii) There must be a suicidal death and abetment thereof.

¶30

iii) There must a continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death.

¶31

iv) Such irritation or annoying must be proximate to the time of occurrence of death.

¶32

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) has held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:28680 CRL.P No. 173 of 2023

¶35

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese (supra) at para 23 has held as follows:

¶36

"23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of 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 persons 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."

¶37

In the instant case, the allegation is that the deceased on coming to know that the accused expressed his inability to marry her, unable to bear the same committed suicide. There is no allegation that the accused herein incited or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Besides, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused herein possessed the knowledge or intention that his acts would lead to the deceased committing suicide and without knowledge or intention, there can be no abatement. In the absence of essential elements so as to constitute the commission of

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:28680 CRL.P No. 173 of 2023

¶39

¶40

offence under Section 306 of IPC, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶43

ii. The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.49/2022 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

RKA

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sharath @ Sharath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharath @ Sharath 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

Mrs Sapna Jain Vs the Home Secretary

Mr. Shashanka K B Vs Jagadish D

Appi Shedthi Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen N S Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mahesh Gopalkrishna Shetty Vs Union of India

Mr. Vinayaka Shanbogh Vs State of Karnataka