Allowed

Rudrappa Banappa Hadapad v. the Stae of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024CRL.P/100087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings against accused No.3 in a suicide case. The court held that demanding loan repayment, even with accompanying threats or abusive language, without proof of specific intent to instigate suicide, does not establish abetment under Section 306 IPC and constitutes an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.191/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are quashed.

Rudrappa Banappa Hadapad Vs the Stae of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100087 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RUDRAPPA BANAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O: HALE TEGUR, TQ: DIST: DHARWAD-580008.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STAE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-URBAN P.S., DHARWAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD-580008.

¶12

RAMESH MYLARAPPA HADPAD, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: RENUKAMBA NILAYA, SIDDHARTH COLONY, MALAPRABHA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.S. DODDALINGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR WITH RESPECT TO DHARWAD SUBURBAN PS CRIME NO.191/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash FIR in Crime No.191/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as to “IPC” for brevity).

¶22

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint and same

¶23

came to be registered in Crime No.191/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station against the petitioner and other accused for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.3 in the FIR has sought quashing of the proceedings of Crime No.191/2022 of Dharwad SubUrban Police Station.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the deceased –Mailarappa father of respondent No.2 had borrowed money from the petitioner –accused No.3 and when insisted for the repayment of loan, alleged to have committed suicide. He contends there is suicidal tendency of the deceased Mailarappa which can be seen in the averments of the complaint where once he alleged to have attempted to commit suicide on 23.12.2021 by consuming poison. He contends that mere demand for repayment of loan does not amount to abetment. In that regard he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mangala Gowri Vs State of Karnataka¹ . Hence, he contends that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶27

Per Contra, learned High Court Government

¶28

Pleader would contend that there is death note left by the

¶29

1 2023 SCC Online KAR 64

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶31

deceased –Mailarappa wherein it is written that accused persons are responsible for his death. The petitioner –

¶32

accused No.3 has kept the scooty of the deceased as he did not repay the amount borrowed. The deceased fed up with demand, has committed suicide leaving a death note. She contends that there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶34

perused complaint, FIR and other material placed on record.

¶35

On perusal of the averments of the complaint,

¶36

the allegation against accused persons is that they lent money to the deceased –Mailarappa and they were insisting the deceased -Mailarappa to repay the amount borrowed. The deceased fed up with the said demand made by accused persons has once attempted to commit suicide i.e., on 23.12.2021. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 09.09.2022 by hanging to the ceiling

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶38

fan in his house. A death note was also found wherein it

¶39

was written that accused persons are responsible for his death.

¶40

The essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not by itself constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of IPC.

¶41

[9. Mere demand and insistence for repayment of

¶42

loan amount does not amount to abetment. The Hon’ble

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶45

Apex Court in the case of M. Arjun Vs State² has observed thus:

¶46

In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellantdeceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C cannot be sustained.

¶47

In the said case also accused had advanced money to the deceased and uttered some words. The Hon’ble Apex Court held, that by itself is not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC. In that case also deceased had left a death note.

¶48

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.Mohan

¶49

Vs State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police³ has held as under:

¶50

2 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 43

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶52

“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.

¶53

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.”

¶54

There was no intention on the part of the petitioner –accused No.3 to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner –accused No.3 intended in getting back the money advanced by him to the deceased. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and selfrespect. Different people behave differently in the same situation.

¶55

3 (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶57

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of M.P.⁴ has held that, words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as ‘to go and die’, cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.

¶58

This Court in Mangala Gowri’s case (supra)

¶59

has held as under:

¶60

The Gujarat High Court in the similar set of facts has quashed the proceedings for the offence under Section 306, 384, 385, 387 of Penal Code, 18960 and Section 40 of the Gujarath Money Lenders Act, in the case of the Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC online Guj 1189 wherein it is observed as under:

¶61

"11. Admittedly, the allegation in FIR is of deceased having borrowed money from the present applicant. The deceased failed to repay the amount with interest. The applicant was constantly demanding the money and alleged to have threatened the deceased. Such act of demanding the repayment of money would not bring case within the meaning of section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. There would not be any mens rea of the applicant as he would not benefited from the act of suicide of the deceased and thus, prima facie the allegation in the FIR, taken at its face value do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused."

¶62

On the consideration of the evidence on record, there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of the appellant/accused

¶63

4 (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12881 CRL.P No. 100087 of 2024

¶65

harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life does not amounts to abetment. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the act of the appellant/accused amount to abetment to the deceased Raju to commit suicide.”

¶66

15. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner –

¶67

accused No.3 merely insisting and demanding the deceased to repay the loan amount does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In view of the same, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner – accused No. 3 is an abuse of process of law.

¶68

In the result, the following

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The petition is allowed.

¶71

The proceedings against the petitioner –accused No.3

¶72

in Crime No.191/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC are quashed.

¶73

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶74

DSP CT:ANB

Rudrappa Banappa Hadapad v. the Stae of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrappa Banappa Hadapad v. the Stae 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

Kumar.Rohan Laxman Chavan Vs Shri. Sanjay Parashuram Savant

The Divisional Manager Vs Basavannevva Basappa Lagodi

The Divisional Manager Vs Prakash Basappa Alagodi

Ishwar Kallppa Tuppad Vs the State of Karnataka

Lalitha Deepti W/O. Suresh Thumpati Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Muzammil M.a., S/O M Abdul Zahid Vs the State of Karnataka