Dharmanayak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025CRL.P/200522/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abetment of suicide – mere utterance of words not ipso facto abetment; absence of specific allegations renders continuation of proceedings abuse of process; quashing under S.528 BNSS (482 Cr.PC analogue); offences under BNS 2023 ss.189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 108, 352, 351(3), 190; marriage-alliance dispute; daughter consumed pesticide and died; Crime No.100/2024 Hunasagi Police Station; C.C.No.40/2025 Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court Shorapur; High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench; CRL.P No.200522 of 2025; Justice V Srishananda; decided 19-06-2025.

What did the court decide?

Pending criminal proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.40/2025 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court (Jr. Dn.), Shorapur, quashed. ¶ORDER clause (ii)

Dharmanayak Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pending criminal proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.40/2025 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court (Jr. Dn.), Shorapur, quashed.

¶ORDER clause (ii)

Issue for consideration

Whether mere uttering of the words allegedly uttered namely “JuÉÚ PÀ¤rzÀÄ ¸¡¬Ä” would ipso facto amount to abetment of suicide so as to sustain the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Mere uttering of the words allegedly uttered (“JuÉÚ PÀ¤rzÀÄ ¸¡¬Ä”), even assuming all the petitioners subscribed to the said uttering, would not ipso facto itself be termed as an abetment to commit suicide as per the settled principles of law governing the field.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against them would result in abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Key takeaways

On perusal of the material on record, the only allegations against the petitioners in the complaint itself are that they had accompanied Sakra Naik to the house of the complainant.ratio¶7
In the quarrel, who exactly uttered the words “JuÉÚ PÀ¤rzÀÄ ¸¡¬Ä” is not forthcoming on record.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (old-code analogue noted as 482 Cr.PC) by five members of one household of Bailapur Tanda, Hunsagi taluk, Yadgir district, arraigned along with first accused Sakra Naik in Crime No.100/2024 (Hunasagi Police Station) and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 108, 352, 351(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 in C.C.No.40/2025 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur. The case arose from the death of Ranjita, daughter of de facto complainant Subhash Jadhav, who consumed pesticide after a marriage-alliance dispute in which the petitioners allegedly accompanied Sakra Naik to the complainant's house on 05.09.2024, demanded Ranjita's marriage to Sakra Naik and threatened the complainant's family. Held: (i) the only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint is that they accompanied Sakra Naik; (ii) who uttered the words “JuÉÚ PÀ¤rzÀÄ ¸¡¬Ä” in the quarrel is not forthcoming on record; (iii) mere uttering of those words, even if subscribed to by all the petitioners, would not ipso facto constitute abetment to commit suicide as per settled principles; and (iv) in the absence of specific allegations, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.40/2025 quashed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200522 OF 2025

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

DHARMANAYAK S/O SAKRANAYAK, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶12

TARABAYI W/O DHARMANAYAK, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶13

KESU @KESU NAIK S/O DHARMANAYAK, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶14

RAMESH S/O DHARMANAYAK, AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

UMIBAYI W/O KESHU NAYAK, AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. BAILAPUR TANDA, TQ. HUNSAGI, DIST.YADGIRI.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, HUNASAGI POLICE STATION, TQ.HUNASAGI DIST.YADGIRI,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

IT’S REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, DIST.KALABURAGI-585103.

¶24

SHREE SUBHASH S/O NARAYANA JADHAV, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAILAPUR TANDA, TQ.HUNSAGI, DIST.YADGIRI-585205.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP FOR R1; SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 )

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 100/2024. (HUNASAGI POLICE STATION) OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 108, 352, 351(3), 190 OF BNS ACT 2023 IN CC NO. 40/2025 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SHORAPUR.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶32

Heard Sri. Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the

¶33

petitioner, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. R.S.Lagali, learned

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

counsel on behalf of Sri. Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶38

This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

¶39

with the following prayer:

¶40

“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleaed to;

¶41

It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition, call for the records and quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.100/2024, (Hunasagi Police Station) offences punishable under Section 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 108, 352, 351(3), 190 of BNS Act, 2023 in C.C.No.40/2025 now pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur, in the interest of justice.”

¶42

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶43

3.1. The respondent No.2 had a daughter by name Ranjita. There was an matrimonial alliance talk between Sakra Naik and Ranjita. The complainant said to have been refused to give his daughter in marriage to Sakra Naik.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

3.2. In that regard, the petitioners along with Sakra Naik said to have visited the house of the complainant on 05.09.2024 and demanded that, Ranjita should be given in marriage to Sakra Naik. In the heated discussions, the petitioners along with Sakra Naik said to have threatened the complainant and his wife that if Ranjita is not given in marriage to Sakra Naik, they would take away the life of the complainant and his family members.

¶48

3.3. After they left the place, the complainant tried to convene a panchayat with the elders of the community and went near the Sevanaik Chowk. As they were completely aware of the facts with regard to the alliance. When he was near the said Sevanaik Chowk, his daughter Ranjita came there with a bottle of pesticide and informed the complainant that being unable to bear the insult that has been caused to the complainant by Sakra Naik, i.e. Sakra Naik assaulting the complainant, she has consumed the pesticide. Immediately, she was taken to the hospital for treatment, wherein she succumbed despite best treatment.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

3.4. Thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged with Hunsagi Police Station, Yadgiri district. The police after registering the case in Crime No.100/2024, after thorough investigation filed charge-sheet against Sakra Naik and these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 108, 352, 351(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023.

¶53

The petitioners after obtaining the bail, have approached this Court stating that, the element of abetment is not forthcoming either in the complaint or in the charge-sheet materials and mere uttering the words “JuÉÚ PÀÄrzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä” would not be sufficient enough to proceed criminally against the petitioners and sought for allowing the petition.

¶54

Sri. Ganesh Naik, learned counsel would submit that, the petitioners have been unnecessarily arraigned as accused and at any rate the words allegedly uttered namely “JuÉÚ PÀÄrzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä” would not ipso facto is treated as abetment for suicide and sought for allowing the petition.

¶55

Per contra, Sri. R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the

¶56

de facto complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, but for uttering the words namely

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

“JuÉÚ PÀÄrzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä” and the assault made by the first accused to the

¶61

father of the deceased, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred. Therefore, all the petitioners are liable to face trial for the charge of abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed.

¶62

On perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, the only allegations against the petitioners in the complaint itself is that, they had accompanied Sakra Naik to the house of the complainant.

¶63

In the quarrel who has uttered the exact words “JuÉÚ

¶64

PÀÄrzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä” is not forthcoming on record.

¶65

Assuming that, all the petitioners have subscribed to the said uttering, mere uttering of those words would not ipso facto itself cannot be termed as an abetment to commit suicide as per the settled principles of law governing the field.

¶66

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners would result in abuse of process of law.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3220 CRL.P No. 200522 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Accordingly, the following order:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶73

(ii) Pending Criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.40/2025 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court (Jr. Dn.) Shorapur, is hereby quashed.

¶74

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶75

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK

Dharmanayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmanayak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajshekhar S/O Kalyanraopatil Vs the State of Karnataka

Yankanna Yadav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sugureshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bismilla Bee and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.

Viresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh Metre Vs the State of Karnataka