Allowed¶42

Sri. Shakeel Ahamad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025CRL.P/9453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abetment to suicide; Section 306 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; quashing of criminal proceedings; suicide note/letter as sole incriminating material; absence of intention/mens rea; frequent quarrels over lorry parking held insufficient to constitute abetment; adjacent shops on NH-4 service road, Madanayakanahalli; State of Karnataka by Madanayakanahalli Police; C.C.No.693/2016; Crime No.391/2015; I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Nelamangala; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023; M.I.Arun, J.; decided 06.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:44814.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.693/2016 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala are quashed. ¶42

Sri. Shakeel Ahamad Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.693/2016 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala are quashed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the act of lorries being parked in front of the shop of the deceased at the instance of the petitioners, and the ensuing quarrels between the petitioners and the deceased, can constitute abetment for pushing the deceased to commit suicide, and whether the petitioners can be charged under Section 306 IPC.

¶36

Court's answer

Frequent quarrels between the petitioners and the deceased arising from lorries being parked on the service road in front of the deceased's shop would not drive a normal and reasonable human being to commit suicide; from this no intention can be attributed to the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Since the facts alleged, even if taken as true, do not prove the intention of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide, the petitioners cannot be charged under Section 306 of IPC in the instant case.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.693/2016 (Crime No.391/2015) of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Deceased, a shop owner on the service road of National Highway No.4 at Madanayakanahalli, committed suicide on 20.08.2015; his pre-suicide letter referred to frequent quarrels with the petitioners (operators of an adjacent battery shop whose customer-lorries blocked access to his shop) as a reason for the suicide. Apart from the letter of the deceased, there was no other material against the petitioners. Held: such quarrels would not drive a normal and reasonable human being to commit suicide, and no intention to drive the deceased to suicide could be attributed to the petitioners; the facts alleged, even if taken as true, did not prove the requisite intention, so the petitioners could not be charged under Section 306 IPC. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44814 CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9453 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHAKEEL AHAMAD, S/O LATE MUNIR AHAMAD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RENT HOUSE OF SANTHOSH, SIDDANAHOSAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, PERMANENT R/O SALLEM NAGARA, CHIPPINAKATTEE, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 562123.

¶9

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI IKBAL PASHA, D/O LATE JAFAR MADEEN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MADANAYAKANAHALLI, PATEL ROAD WAYS, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562162.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI SHAKEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, REP. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560032.

¶15

SMT. M.R. SUDHA, W/O LATE RAJANNA B V,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44814 CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT JANATHA COLONY, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 162.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1, SRI KASHIF KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT NIDHI M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS C.C.NO.693/2016 IN CR.NO.391/2015 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC 1860, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The victim one Vasudeva R., was running a shop on the service road of National highway No.4 at Madanayakanahalli. Petitioner No.1 is said to be running a battery shop adjacent to that of the victim's shop. Petitioner No.2 is said to be a worker in the said shop. In the course of business, it is stated that several lorries were being parked on the service

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:44814 CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

road where the shops of petitioner No.1 and the victim was situated. It blocked the access to the shop of the victim. It used to result in frequent quarrels between the deceased and petitioners. The deceased has committed suicide on 20.08.2015. In his letter written prior to suicide, he has blamed several incidents and several persons responsible for his death. In the process he has also mentioned about the frequent quarrels that he had with the petitioners due to the lorries blocking access to his shop which resulted him being mentally tortured as one of the reasons for him committing suicide.

¶30

Based on the said letter, a Police report has been filed against the petitioners herein and C.C.No.693/2016 is registered on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala, the same is challenged herein.

¶31

The case of the petitioners is, that they were running a battery shop adjacent to the shop of the deceased and in the course of their business, several lorries who used to be their customers used to park the same on the service

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44814 CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

road and not on the property of the deceased. It is submitted that the parking was done in accordance with law and there was no prohibition for such parking in front of the shop of the deceased. It is also contended that they had no intention to push the deceased to commit suicide. On the said ground, it is prayed that the proceedings in C.C.No.693/2016 be quashed against them.

¶35

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions, submits that the letter of the deceased clearly names the petitioners and they are responsible for the deceased committing suicide and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

Admittedly, apart from the letter of the deceased, there is no material against the petitioner herein. The question that arises for consideration is whether the act of the lorries being parked in front of the shop of the deceased at the instance of the petitioners and the ensuing quarrels between the petitioners and the deceased can constitute abetment for pushing the deceased to commit suicide under

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:44814 CRL.P No. 9453 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the normal circumstances and can petitioners herein be charged under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

¶41

What is borne out from the Police report and the Police investigation is that the deceased and the petitioners herein had shops adjacent to each other. In the course of business of the petitioners herein, lorries were being parked on the service road and in front of the shop of the deceased also, which led to frequent quarrels between petitioners and the deceased. This in my opinion would not drive a normal and reasonable human being to commit suicide. From this, one cannot attribute any intention to the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide. As the facts alleged even if taken as true, does not prove the intention of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide, in my opinion the petitioners cannot be charged under Section 306 of IPC, as in the instant case.

¶42