Allowed

Mr Premachandra v. Mr G T Nanjareddy

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.P/6273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in an abetment-of-suicide case arising from an employee's death sought quashing of trial proceedings. The Court found the death note contained no allegations against the accused, the complaint was an improved version, and no prima facie ingredients of Section 306 were made out, quashing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.92/2022 quashed insofar as the present petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are concerned; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Mr Premachandra Vs Mr G T Nanjareddy — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6273 OF 2019 C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6085 OF 2019

¶8

IN CRL.P NO.6273/2019 BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PREMACHANDRA SON OF P S APPU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS DIRECTOR, VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 082

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . MR G T NANJAREDDY SON OF THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT VALLEY SCHOOL QUARTERS RACHANAMADU, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 082

¶14

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

¶16

BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2; SRI Y.HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.92/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶20

IN CRL.P NO.6085/2019 BETWEEN:

¶21

1 . SAGAR WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE IN PLACE OF SAGAR PRINCE S/O A G GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU THATGUNI POST-560 082.

¶22

2 . JAYARAM S/O LATE SURYANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SECRETARY THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU

¶23

¶24

KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU THATGUNI POST-560082.

¶25

3 . VARGEESH WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE IN PLACE OF K C VARGHESE S/O K.V.CHACKO (LATE) AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS FINANCE MANAGER THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU THATGUNI POST-560 082.

¶26

4 . RAMAMURTHY G S/O GOVINDRAJ K V AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MAINTENANCE MANAGER THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU THATGUNI POST-560082.

¶27

5 . GOVINDA WRONGLY MENTIONED AS ABOVE IN PLACE OF GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O VENKATAPPA LABOUR THE VALLEY SCHOOL, RACHANAMADU KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU THATGUNI POST-560082.

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANASA B RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶30

¶31

AND:

¶32

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION HAROHALLI CIRCLE, RAMANAGARA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING-562 112.

¶33

2 . G T NANJAREDDY S/O THIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS THE VALLEY SCHOOL, QUARTERS, RACHANAMADU, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560082

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI M.R. PTAIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI T. SUNIL & SRI K.V.MUKESH, ADVOCATES FOR R2)

¶36

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.15/2018 AND ALSO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.92/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU (RURAL), BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306, 504 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

These two captioned petitions are filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.92/2022 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶41

The case of the prosecution is that one Radhamma who is the wife of respondent No.1/complainant was employee of the Valley School. The Executive Committee of the Krishnamurthy Foundation of India resolved to fix the age of superannuation at 55 years. Pursuant to decision taken in the meeting held on 30.05.1995, the retirement age of all the staff members and employees of the Valley School was fixed at 55 years. The wife of respondent No.1 was found floating in the pond next to the campus on 09.01.2018 at around 7.15 p.m. The respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before respondent

¶42

¶43

No.2 alleging that his wife Smt. Radhamma has committed suicide due to an alleged altercation she had with Mr. Sagar Prince, Jayaram S., K.C.Varghese, G.Ramamurthy and Govindappa on 09.01.2018 at around 1.00 p.m. Based on the complaint, respondent No.2 registered a crime and has laid charge sheet against the petitioners in both the petitions.

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions reiterating the grounds would vehemently argue and contend that the allegations made in the complaint, FIR and charge sheet, even if accepted in entirety, the said materials do not prima facie constitute any case against the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6273/2019 would vehemently argue and contend that petitioner is a Fellow Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad who has done his M.Sc. in Chemistry from Delhi University and in his career spanning over 40 years has served as a

¶45

¶46

Professor of Financial Management in several management institutions. He would further point out that he has been a visiting/adjunct Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad for over 10 years and is currently advising the Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur and was a fulltime faculty for 9 years at the Indian Institute of Management, Bengaluru. Learned Senior Counsel would further point out that petitioner was appointed as Director to the Valley School in September 2016 and petitioner had no occasion to meet either respondent No.1 or deceased at any point of time.

¶47

Reiterating the grounds, he would point out that wife of respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved by the action of the Valley School in relieving wife of respondent No.1, questioned the age of retirement by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.46/2017. He would also point out that respondent No.1 who was the employee of Valley School retired on 28.02.2011 and he also raised a dispute. He

¶48

¶49

would point out that there is amicable settlement between management and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1’s wife filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.56/2018. Referring to the death note, learned Senior Counsel would point out that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 are not made out. On these set of grounds, he would contend that this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.P.Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab and Ors.¹ and Mohit Singhal & Another vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.²

¶50

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6085/2019 has persuaded this Court to examine the death note. Referring to the contents of death note, he would contend that there are absolutely no allegations relating to abetment. Referring to the

¶51

1 MANU/SC/1806/2022

¶52

2 Crl.Appeal No.3578 of 2023 Dtd: 01.12.2023

¶53

¶54

allegations in the death note, he has taken strong exception that respondent No.1 has improvised the narration while lodging the complaint. He would also point out that there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6. Learned Senior Counsel while seeking quashing of the proceedings has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶55

1) Nettai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal – 2005 (2) SCC

¶56

659;

¶57

2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat – 2010 (8)

¶58

SCC 628;

¶59

3) Swati Pai vs. State of Karnataka and Others –

¶60

W.P.No.28602/2015 Dtd: 07.12.2015;

¶61

4) State of Kerala vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair – AIR 2015 SC

¶62

3351;

¶63

5) Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – AIR 2002 SC

¶64

1998;

¶65

6) Vaijnath vs. State of Maharashtra and Another – 2018

¶66

(7) SCC 781;

¶67

7) Arunabha Bandyopadhyay vs. State of Karnataka and

¶68

Others – Crl.P.No.6038/2014 Dt: 19.01.2016;

¶69

8) Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh –

¶70

1995 (3) Supp. SCC 438;

¶71

¶72

9) Gopal Krishna vs. Sharad Kumar Shirali and Others – 2015 (1) KCCR 868;

¶73

10) V.V.Singara Vellu vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.3095/2022 Dtd: 16.06.2023.

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/defacto complainant referring to the material on record would point out that when the matter was seized before the Industrial Tribunal and Court, the accused forcibly disconnected the power supply. He would point out that respondent No.1’s wife was a Labour Leader and was attending the problems of employees of the Valley School. Referring to the material on record, he would contend that there is sufficient prima facie evidence indicating that accused have harassed his wife which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. He would point out that there is sufficient material indicating that there was instigation by all the accused. However, counsel appearing

¶75

¶76

for respondent No.1/complainant fairly concedes that there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6.

¶77

Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others³ and it is argued that there are around 16 witnesses and therefore, this is not a fit case where indulgence is warranted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶78

Learned HCGP arguing in the same vein would contend that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners. Referring to the charge sheet materials, he would point out that the deceased was harassed by all the accused and there is sufficient material indicating that there was provocation and instigation at the accused end which forced wife of respondent No.1 to commit suicide.

¶79

3 AIR 2020 SC 909

¶80

¶81

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned HCGP.

¶82

Except respondent No.1, all other witnesses are official witnesses. The entire prosecution case hinges on the death note. On meticulous examination of the death note, what emerges is that deceased has been the voice of the staff working in the Valley School. She has also claimed that she has been fighting for the cause of employees of Valley School who are being ill-treated by the management. There are also allegations that accused No.3/petitioner No.2 has amassed wealth by unfair means. Similar allegations are made against accused No.4/petitioner No.3 that he is from Kerala and he owns property worth rupees crores. In the death note, she also narrates as to how one Sudha Premnath who owns 200 acres of land in Kaigil in Andhra Pradesh and is mishandling the funds of Krishnamurthy Foundation of India. In the death note, she also refers as

¶83

¶84

to how some of the employees of the Valley School are exploited and are given weekly wages instead of monthly wages. I deem it fit to cull out these relevant allegations in the death note:

¶85

“ªÀVð¸ï EªÀgÀÄ PÉÃgÀ¼ÀzÀªÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ D¹Û PÉÆÃn PÉÆÃnUÀlÖ¯É ¨ÉÃPÁzÀµÀÄÖ PÉÃgÀ¼ÀzÀ°è EzÉ E°è£À ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÀAqÀÄ »rAiÀÄÄvÁÛ ºÉÃ½ EªÀ£ÀzÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌªÉ E®è zÁPïªÀÄä C£ÀÄßªÀ CªÀÄä PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ vÀÄA¨Á ªÀµÀð CªÀÄä¤UÉ UÀAl®Ä PÁ¬Ä¯É §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt PÉÆr D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ DZÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀ ¥Á¥À PÁ¬Ä¯ÉAvÀ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ EzÉ¯Áè £Á£ÀÄ PÉÃ½zÉ CzÀPÉÌ EµÀÖ EzÀÝgÉ EgÀÄ E®è JAzÀgÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆÃªÀ£ÀÄß wA¢zÉÝÃ£É. ¸ÀÄzsÁ ¥ÉæÃªÀiï£Áxï, ¸ÀÄzsÁ EªÀgÀÄ PÉÊV¯ï C£ÀÄß 200 JPÉgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ EzÉ DAzsÀæ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÉ C°è §qÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ «zsÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃ« JAzÀÄ ¨sÀAiÀÄAPÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀÄ PÀÈµÀÚªÀÄÆwð ¥ËAqÉÃµÀ£ï ¸ÉÃjzÉ C°è EgÀÄªÀ ¨É®è ¸ÀPÀÌgÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ vÀÄ¥Àà, CQÌ, ¨ÉÃ¼É, fÃjUÉ J¯Áè ¥ÀzsÁxÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ C°èAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°è ªÀiÁgÀÄw EzÀÝPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ C£ÀGªÀÄw PÉÆnÖ «ÃgÀgÀ£ÀÄß EzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹ C°èAiÀiÁgÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CªÀjUÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¦.J¥sï E¢ÝÃAiÀÄ E®è E®é £ÉÆÃr vÀÄA¨Á C£ÁåAiÀÄ dgÀÄUÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ £ÉÆÃr.

¶86

ZÀAzÀ£ï- EzÀ£ÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ªÉÆÃ¸À CmÁPï «¯ÉÃeïUÉ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÆlÖ ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï PÉè K£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃªÉ ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ ©¸ÉÌÃmï ºÀtÄÚ EzÉ¯Áè G½zÉ¯Áè ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É zÉÆqÀØPÀ¼Àî PÀ¯ÁÌvÁ£À°è EªÀgÀ D¹Û ¨ÉÃPÁzÀµÀÄÖ EzÉAiÉÄÃ CªÀgÀ §AzÀÄ

¶87

¶88

M¼ÀUÉ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EzÉ PÀAqÀÄ »r¬Äj ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeïªÉÄAmï£À°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EzÁÝgÀÆ Cvï §qÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÈµÀÚªÀÄÆwð ¥ËAqÉÃµÀ£ï vÀÄA¨Á ¨É¼É¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ« zÉÆqÀØzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃ« JAzÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃgÉ zÉÃ±ÀZÀªÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á vÀÄA¨Á ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÉ¯Áè ªÀiÁå£ÉeïªÉÄAmï wAzÀÄ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÁÛ EzÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁgÀzÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤°è¹ wAUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼À PÉÆr¹ £À£Àß CPÀëgÀ vÀ¥ÀÄà EzÀÝgÉ PÀë«Ä¹ ¨ÉÃUÀ ¨ÉÃUÀ §gÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É.”

¶89

Now let me examine the allegations in the complaint lodged by the husband on 10.01.2018. The respondent No.1/complainant has alleged that on 09.01.2018 at about 1.00 p.m. accused Nos.2 to 6 visited

¶90

the quarters and have started abusing the wife of respondent No.1 in a filthy language and also tried to assault. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the entire complaint which reads as under:

¶91

“EªÀjAzÀ

¶92

f.n. £ÀAdgÉrØ wªÀÄägÉrØAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ, ªÁ¸À ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï vÁvÀUÀÄtÂ ¥ÉÆÃ¸ïÖ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-82.

¶93

EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÀð¯ï E£Éì÷àPÀÖgï

¶94

¶95

PÀUÀÎ° ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-82.

¶96

¸Áé«Ä,

¶97

£À£Àß ¥Àwß ²æÃªÀÄw gÁzsÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß dÄ¯ÉÊ 2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉåÃ° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÉÄÃ£ÉÃeÉäAmï £ÀªÀgÀÄ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ £À£Àß ¥Àwß PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeÉäAmï ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÃ¸ÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÉÎ 19.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ EzÀÝ «zÀÄåvïZÀÑQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð GzÉÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV PÀrzÀÄ

¶98

ºÁQzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeïªÉÄAn£ÀªÀgÀÄ §¯ÁvÁÌgÀªÁV ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.12.2017 gÀAzÀÄ M.J¸ï. £ÀA. 304/2017 gÀAzÀÄ f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ f¯Áè £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ §®vÁÌgÀªÁV ºÉÆgÀºÁPÀzÀAvÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ ¤Ãr, «zÀÄåvïZÀÒQÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁPÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F

¶99

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DeÉÕAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁ: 8.1.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃeÉäAmïUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, PÀgÉAlÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 9.1.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 1 WÀAmÉUÉ, ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ, ªÀVð¸ï, ¸ÁUÀgï gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð, ¸ÉPÉælj dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½UÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¸ÀÆ¼É JA§ÄzÁV CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁvÀæªÀ®èzÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ EzÀÝ ¤Ãj£À ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀjvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ CªÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉ £À£Àß ¥Àwß gÁwæ 7 1/4 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉgÉUÉ ºÁj DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶100

¶101

£À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«UÉ ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À qÉÊgÉPÀÖgï ¥ÉæÃªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁUÀgï ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï Drä¤¸ÉÖçÃgï, ªÀVð¸ï CPËAmïì ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï, gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð gÉÊlgï, ¸ÉPÉælj dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï, EªÀgÀÄ PÁgÀtgÁVzÀÄÝ, F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä qÉvï£ÉÆÃlÄ §gÉ¢nÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£ÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶102

DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ ¸Á«£À §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ ªÁå° ¸ÀÆÌ°£À qÉÊgÉPÀÖgï, ¥ÉæÃªÀÄZÀAzÀæ, ªÁå°¸ÀÆÌ°£À Crä¤¸ÉÖçÃlgï ¸ÁUÀgï, dAiÀÄgÁªÀiï ¸ÉPÉælj, CPËAmïì ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï ªÀVð¸ï, gÉÊlgï gÁªÀÄªÀÄÆwð, PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀ UÉÆÃ«AzÀ, £À£Àß ¥Àwß ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁzÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É.

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ

¢£ÁAPÀ: 10-01-2018.

¸À»/(£ÀAd gÉrØ)

«.¸ÀÆ: £À£Àß ¥ÀwßAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄªÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä §gÉ¢nÖ¢Ý ªÀÄÆ® qÉvï £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶107

It is quite worth to note that the allegations in

¶108

the complaint are not found in the alleged death note of the

¶109

deceased. In the death note, there are absolutely no allegations which would attract the ingredients of Sections 306 and 504 of IPC. The complaint lodged by respondent

¶110

¶111

No.1 is an improved version and a new narrative is set up in the complaint, while the death note of the deceased clearly lacks material evidence to support the allegation of abetment to suicide against the petitioners herein. The deceased has committed suicide on 09.01.2018. It has come to the notice of this Court that there exists a significant temporal gap between the alleged incident of management disconnecting power supply in defiance of an injunction order granted by the Civil Court and the tragic occurrence of suicide. The temporal disparity raises pertinent questions regarding the casual nexus between the alleged actions of the Management and the subsequent decision of the deceased to end her life.

¶112

On meticulous examination of the material on record and thorough scrutiny, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no clear and cogent connection between the purported misconduct of the accused and the precipitating factors that led to deceased committing

¶113

¶114

suicide. In absence of any corroborative evidence and the charge sheet materials linking the two events within a proximate time frame casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the management.

¶115

If the death note does not indicate as to who disconnected power supply and lacks specific details regarding alleged actions of Principal and Director of the educational institution, it obviously weakens the case for criminal prosecution against the accused. Without specific details or clear attribution of responsibility in the death note, it becomes challenging to establish the direct link between the actions of the Principal of the Valley School as well as the Director and the unfortunate outcome of the deceased’s suicide.

¶116

The charge sheet primarily relies on the statement of respondent No.1/complainant made under Section 161 which do not provide substantial grounds to

¶117

¶118

proceed against the petitioners. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the death note left by deceased does not contain any specific allegations or mentioning any act of harassment by the present accused. In absence of any credible evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences, there is no prima facie case which would compel the present petitioners to face trial.

¶119

The petitioner in Crl.P.No.6273/2019 holds a Ph.D. degree from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. It is contended that the petitioner is a guest lecturer at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. Therefore, it is borne out from the records that petitioner had no access either to deceased or respondent No.1 and that he was appointed as the Director only in 2017. The linking of the Director of the educational institution to the alleged incident in absence of credible evidence and then compelling such a reputed person to face a criminal trial would clearly amount to abuse of process. It is also borne

¶120

¶121

out from the records that deceased during her lifetime has raised a dispute questioning the age of superannuation. In the present context, the pendency of industrial dispute challenging the retirement age also leads to an inference that respondent No.1 has used the unfortunate incident where he lost his wife by launching criminal prosecution against the Principal and the management.

¶122

As could be gathered from the death note, she was always fighting for the right of the fellow employees and merely because this would lead to an inference that deceased had a grudge against the management and the Principal and committed suicide, the same would not be a ground to base charge in Section 306. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior and committed suicide on account of that grudge, it would still not be a proper allegation and it would fall short of proper allegation. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the

¶123

¶124

accused can be prosecuted under Section 306 provided that there is a prima facie material indicating positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.

¶125

As per the ingredients of Section 306, 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. Even if the allegation in the complaint, death note and charge sheet materials are accepted in entirety, there is absolutely no material indicating direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide at the instance of the present petitioners.

¶126

In the case of A.K.Chaudhary and Ors. vs.

¶127

State of Gujarat , the Gujarat High Court ruled that if an employee commits suicide due to any abnormal reaction

¶128

¶129

caused by the complainant or higher officers conduct of taking departmental action by using a legal remedy or enforcing the law, it cannot be deemed an abetting suicide under the said circumstances. In the case of Dyamanna S/o Yamanappa vs. State of Karnataka, this Court ruled that mere harassment by way of filing cases cannot associate the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs. Inspector of Police , held that for an offence to be punished under Section 306 of IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and direct act of instigation or abetment which led the deceased to commit suicide.

¶130

Analyzing the factual context of the present case through the lens of the aforementioned judgments, it becomes evident that there is an utter dearth of material on record, even presuming the accuracy of the complete charge sheet, that could substantiate a conviction for abetment. The absence of essential ingredients required to

¶131

¶132

establish the offence is glaring. While empathizing with the grief of a husband who has lost his wife, it is imperative to recognize that attributing blame to the institution, its management, and its teachers for what essentially constitutes a routine disciplinary action essential for the operation of the institute is unwarranted. In the absence of specific allegations and concrete evidence, ask the petitioners-accused to undergo trial would constitute a travesty of justice resonates with the fundamental principle of legal fairness and due process.

¶133

A criminal trial, as acknowledged, is inherently burdensome, particularly for the petitioners, who, being the director and teachers, would undoubtedly suffer significant prejudice if subjected to prosecution based on baseless and irrelevant allegations.

¶134

Therefore, it is imperative to discern that for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to

¶135

¶136

be established, both mens rea (the guilty mind) and actus reus (the wrongful act) are indispensable. The act of instigation or aiding in suicide must be dynamically proximate to the death, whether directly or indirectly, and of a nature that impels the individual to commit suicide. Hence, in cases where these requisite elements are manifest, the recourse to jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) would not be tenable. Conversely, in instances where these foundational components are absent, this Court is duty-bound to intervene and terminate the proceedings which would on the face of it, be abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶137

In the light of discussion made supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶138

ORDER

¶139

(i) The criminal petitions are allowed;

¶140

¶141

(ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.92/2022 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru are hereby quashed insofar the present petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are concerned;

¶142

(iii) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶143

Sd/JUDGE

¶144

Mr Premachandra v. Mr G T Nanjareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Premachandra v. Mr G T Nanjareddy

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

Prof. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Rajendiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S N Vasudevan Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Alfa S Vs the Chief Secreary

State Bank Retireees Association Vs State Bank of India

N C Krishnegowda Vs Executive Engineer