Dasari Venkataramudu vs State of Karnataka

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court | Negatively Viewed by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 25, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Dasari Venkataramudu vs State Of Karnataka By on 4 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13417
CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                       BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14200 OF 2024

               BETWEEN:

               1.    DASARI VENKATARAMUDU
                     S/O APPAIAH
                     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
                     RESIDING AT NO. 12/517
                     K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR
                     NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK
                     ANANTHPURA (DIST.)
                     ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 801.

               2.    SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
                     W/O DASARI VENKATARAMUDU

Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
by SANJEEVINI RESIDING AT NO. 12/517
J KARISHETTY
Location: High K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR
Court of
Karnataka NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK
ANANTHPURA (DIST)
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 801.

               3.    SMT. MADHURI LATHA
                     W/O KIRAN KUMAR
                     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                     RESIDING AT NO. 12/517
                     K-5, ADHARSHNAGAR
                     NEAR BY MRO OFFICE, GUNTAKAL TALUK
                     ANANTHPURA (DIST)
                       -2-
                                  NC: 2026:KHC:13417
                             CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024

HC-KAR

 ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 801.
                                         ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
   BELLANDUR POLICE STATION
   BENGALURU
   REPRESENTED BY
   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
   W/O CHINA VENKATESHWARALU
   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
   RESIDING AT YALUR VILLAGE
   GOUSEPAD MANDALAM
   KURNOOL (DIST)
   ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 573.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
   R2-SERVED)

   THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
   THE F.I.R, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREIN ARISING OUT OF
   FIR IN QUESTION, SC NO. 1997/2022 (CRIME NO.224/2019)
   REGISTERED AT BELLANDUR POLICE STATION FOR THE
   OFFENCE PUNISHABLE SEC. 498(A), 306 AND 34 OF IPC,
   PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
   SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY
   ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
   ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
   -3-
   NC: 2026:KHC:13417
   CRL.P No. 14200 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                     ORAL ORDER Petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are before the Court

calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.1997/2022, pending

on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-72), Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 306 and 34 of the IPC.

1. Heard Sri Nataraj D., learned counsel for petitioners

and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1. The complainant though

served, has remained unrepresented even today.

1. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

Petitioner are accused Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.2 is

the complainant. The daughter of the complainant is given in

marriage to accused No.1. The relationship between the

daughter of the complainant and accused No.1 is said to have

turned sore. On a fateful day, i.e., 16.07.2019, the daughter of

the complainant commits suicide. An axe of crime in Crime

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

No.224/2019 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 34 of the IPC falls on all four accused. Husband is not

before the Court. The present petition is preferred by accused

Nos.2, 3 and 4. The police conduct investigation and file a

charge sheet against all the accused, out of whom accused

Nos.2, 3 and 4 are before the Court in the subject petition.
4. Sri Nataraj D., learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that in the death note there is no whisper

about any allegations against these petitioners of demand of

dowry or harassment meted out upon the deceased that has

led the daughter of the complainant to commit suicide.

Learned counsel submits that even in the complaint or the

summary of the charge sheet, there is no allegation that could

touch upon the offences so alleged against the petitioners. He

would submit that the law with regard to Section 306 of the

IPC, is too well settled.

1. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing

for respondent No.1 would refute the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioners in contending that the

                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The police after conduct of investigation,

have filed the charge sheet. Since the charge sheet is filed, it

is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.

1. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective

parties and have perused the material on record.

1. The afore-narrated facts, dates and the link in the

chain of the events are all a matter of record. The entire issue

has now triggered from registration of the complaint. The

complaint reads as follows.

"ರವ ೆ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.07.2019
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ರವರು,
ೆಳ ಂದೂರು ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ.

  ರವ ಂದ,
  !ಾ"ಾಯಣಮ& ' (ೋA )ಕ*+ೆಂಕ,ೇ-
  59 ವಷ/, +ಾಸ ನಂ-ಇಲ2, 3ಾಲೂರು ಾ4ಮ,
   ೋ           ಾ5 ಮಂಡಲಂ, ಕನೂ/7 89ೆ2,
  ಆಂಧ4ಪ4=ೇಶ "ಾಜ@.
  ªÉÆ. 8008523343
  AಾB: 3ಾದವ

                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR Cಷಯ:- ನನD ಮಗಳE F4ೕಮB ಸG"ಾ=ೇC (ೊಂ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ, 28 ವಷ/
ರವರು ಮೃತ LೊಂMರುವ ಬ ೆO ದೂರು.

!ಾನು Pೕಲಂಡ CQಾಸದ 2 ನನD ಪB F4ೕ )ನD+ೆಂಕ,ೇ- Lಾಗೂ ಮಗ
F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವ"ೊಂM ೆ ಕQೆದ 50 ವಷ/ಗSಂದ +ಾಸ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVೆWೕ!ೆ. !ಾವX
8ೕವ!ೋಪಯ(ಾY ವ@ವZಾಯದ (ೆಲಸ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVೆWೕ+ೆ. ನನD ಮಗ F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವರು
ವ@ವZಾಯ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ. ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ಎಂ.'.ಎ +ಾ@ಸಂಗ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ.
ನನD ಮಗQಾದ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ರವರನುD ಆನಂತಪXರ 89ೆ2, ಗುಂತಕ7
ಮಂಡಲಂನ 2 +ಾಸCರುವ F4ೕ +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ಮತುW ಧನಲ]^=ೇC ರವರ ಮಗ!ಾದ F4ೕ
ಅಮರ!ಾಥ U.ಎ ರವ ೆ _ ಯರ ಸಮ`ಮ M!ಾಂಕ: 04.06.2015 ರಂದು ಗುಂತಕ7
ನ 2ರುವ aUb ಕ9ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ 2 ನಮ& ಮತುW ಅಮರ!ಾಥ ರವರ ಕcೆಯ ಎ9ಾ2ರು ಒbe
ಸಂಪ4=ಾಯ+ಾY C+ಾಹ TಾU(ೊa ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ.

_ೕYರು+ಾಗ ನನD ಮಗಳನುD C+ಾಹ+ಾದ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ ರವರು ತನD ಪBD F4ೕಮB
ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವ"ೊಂM ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು ೆಳ ಂದೂರು ೇg, ಸAಾ/ಪXರ
ರZೆWಯ 2ರುವ F4ೕ Gತ4 ಅ ಾಟ/Pಂg ನ ಾ2g ನಂ-113 ರ 2 +ಾಸ ಆYದhರು. C+ಾಹ
ಆದ Lೊಸದರ 2 ನನD ಮಗಳನುD iೆ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳE BWದನ
h ು.

ು ನಂತರದ Mನಗಳ 2 ನನD
ಮಗಳ ಅVೆW3ಾದ F4ೕಮB ಧನಲ]^ Tಾವ F4ೕ +ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ರವರು Lಾಗೂ !ಾ@Mj
F4ೕಮB Tಾಧ ರವರು ನನD ಮಗಳ ಬ ೆO ತುಂ ಾ kೕQಾY !ೋU jೕನು ಹS lಂದ ಬಂದ
ಹುಡುY jನ ೆ ಸ 3ಾY ಇಂY2m ಬರುವXMಲ2 jೕನು 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸ(ೆ* Zೇ (ೊಂUಲ2 ಎಂದು
TಾBನ 2 _ಂZೆ jೕಡುBWದhರು.

ು ನಂತರದ Mನಗಳ 2 ನನD ಮಗಳನುD ನನD ಆSಯ
ಅಮರ!ಾn ರವರುವರ ತಂ=ೆ Vಾl ಮತುW ಅವರ ತಂY
ತಂY TಾತುಗಳನುD (ೇS(ೊಂಡು ನನD
ಮಗS ೆ ಪ4Bjತ@ Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY ಂZೆ TಾಡುBWರುವ ಬ ೆO ನನD ಮಗಳE ನಮ& ಮ!ೆ ೆ
ಬಂ=ಾಗ ನಮ& ಬS Lಾಗೂ ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕ"ಾದ F4ೕಮB ಉTಾ=ೇC ರವರ ಬS ಸಹ
ತನD ಕಷ ಗಳನುD LೇS(ೊಳE ತWದಳ
h E.
E ನಂತರ !ಾವX ಮತುW ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕರು ನಮ&
ಮಗS ೆ LೊಂM(ೊಂಡು 8ೕವನ TಾಡುವಂVೆ ಬುMh LೇS ಕಳEಸುVೆWದವ
h X.X ಈ ಸಮಯದ 2
ನನD ಮಗಳE ಗr/s3ಾY M!ಾಂಕ:

M!ಾಂಕ 15.08.2016 ರ 2 ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗುC ೆ ಜನ&
jೕUರುVಾWQ ೆ,ೆ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á+ೇ ಆ(ೆಯ ಾಣಂತನ TಾU ಪXನಃ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡನ ಮ!ೆ ೆ
ಕಳE_'ರುVೆWೕ+ೆ.

+ೆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀ ನಂತರವX ಸಹ ಆ(ೆಯ
ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ,
ಗಂಡ ಅVೆW,
Tಾವ Lಾಗೂ !ಾMj ರವರು Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY »A¸É TಾಡುವXದು TಾಡುBWದhರು.

ು

ನಂತರ M!ಾಂಕ: 16.07.2019 ರಂದು ಸುTಾರು ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 1.30 ಗಂ,ೆ ೆ ನನD
ಮಗಳ Tಾವ!ಾದ F4ೕ+ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು ರವರು ನನD ಮಗ F4ೕ(ಾಂR ರವ ೆ ಕ"ೆ TಾU
jಮ& ಮಗಳE ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವರು !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು ಆತ&ಹVೆ@
TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾWQ ೆಂದು BS'ದನು. ನಂತರ !ಾನು ನನD ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ@ ೆ Ciಾರ

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

BS' ಕೂಡ9ೇ M!ಾಂಕ: 17.07.2019 ರಂದು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು ಅಮರ!ಾn
ರವರನುD Ciಾರ Tಾಡ9ಾY ಅಮರ!ಾn BS'=ೆhೕ!ೆಂದ"ೆ, M!ಾಂಕ: 16.09.2019 ರಂದು
ೆS ೆO 8.30 ಗಂ,ೆಯ 2 ಆbೕ ೆ LೋYದುh, ನ ನ ಮಗ ಕೃಷuವಂFಯು vಾ9ೆ ೆ LೋYದುh,
ಮ!ೆಯ 2 ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ಒಬwgÉ ಇರುVಾW"ೆ. ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 12.00 ಗಂ,ೆಯ 2 ಮ!ೆ ೆ ಬಂ=ಾಗ
ಮ!ೆಯ ಾYಲು Vೆ"ೆMದುh, ಮ!ೆxಳ ೆ !ೋಡ9ಾY ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC Lಾ7ನ 2ರುವ
' ಂy ಾ@ ೆ 'ೕ"ೆlಂದ !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂUದುh, 8ೕವ ಇರಬಹು=ೆಂದು ಆ(ೆಯನುD
!ೇಣು ಕುs(ೆlಂದ (ೆಳYS' ಸGೕಪದ (ೊಲಂr3ಾ ಆಸeVೆ4 ೆ Vೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡು +ೈದ@ ೆ
Vೋ ಸ9ಾY ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ಈ ಾಗ9ೆ ಮೃತLೊಂMರುVಾW"ೆಂದು BS'ರುVಾW"ೆಂದು ನನD
ಮತುW ನಮ& ಸಂಬಂoಕರ ಬS BS'ದನು. ನಂತರ !ಾವX ಸAಾ/ಪXರ ರZೆWಯ 2ರುವ
(ೊ ಂr3ಾ ಆಸeVೆ4ಯ ಶ+ಾ ಾರ(ೆ* LೋY ೕಸರು Vೋ 'ದ ಮೃತ=ೇಹವನುD
!ೋUದುh, ಸದ ಮೃತ =ೇಹವX ನನD ಮಗQಾದ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕ"ಾ=ೇC ರವರ ಮೃತ
ಆYರುVೆWಂದು ಗುB/'ರುVೆWೕ!ೆ.

ನನD ಮಗS ೆ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ Tಾವ ಅVೆW ಮತುW !ಾMj ರವರು jೕಡುBWದh
Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾದ kರುಕುಳMಂದ Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY !ೊಂM 8ಗು ೆe LೊಂM !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು
ಮೃತQಾYರುVಾWQ ೆ. ಆದh ಂದ ನನD ಮಗಳ ZಾC ೆ (ಾರಣ"ಾದ ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ ಅಮರ!ಾಥ,
Tಾವ F4ೕ+ೆಂಕಟ"ಾಮುಡು, ಅVೆW ಧನಲ]^ ಮತುW !ಾMj Tಾಧು ರವರ Cರುದ{ (ಾನೂನು
ಕ4ಮ ಜರುYಸಲು Lಾಗೂ ನನD ಮಗಳ ZಾC ೆ jಖರ+ಾದ (ಾರಣ BSಯಲು ಮೃತ
=ೇಹವನುD ಮರ ೋತWರ ಪ ೕ}ೆ ೆ ಒಳಪU', ಮೃತ=ೇಹವನುD ಮುಂMನ (ಾಠ@C•ಾನಗS ೆ
ನನD ವಶ(ೆ* jೕಡಲು (ೋರ9ಾY=ೆ.

ವಂದ!ೆಗQೆ ಂM ೆ,

ತಮ& Cvಾ€'
¸À»/-

(£ÁgÁAiÀÄtªÀÄä)"

(Emphasis added)

The backdrop of the complaint is that, the relationship

between accused No.1 and the daughter of the complainant

had floundered and floundering of the relationship is alleged to

be on certain circumstances including the demand of dowry by

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

accused No.1, the husband. A perusal at the complaint does

not indicate that petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 did

resided with the couple. The police after investigation file the

charge sheet. The charge sheet is for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The summary of

the charge sheet as obtaining under column No.7 reads as

follows:

"7. PÀ®A 498(J), 306 L¦¹
=ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪ ಾ ಪa ಯ (ಾಲಂ ನಂ 04 ರ 2 ನಮೂM'ರುವ ಎ1 ಂದ ಎ4
ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ಮತುW Zಾ]-1 ರವರು ಆಂಧ4ಪ4=ೇಶ ಮೂಲದವ"ಾYದುh, Zಾ]-1 ರವರು
ತನD ಮಗQಾದ ಮೃತ ²æÃಮB ¸À«ÄÃvÁ zÉë gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.06.2015
ರಂದು ಆಂಧ4 ಪ4=ೇಶ "ಾಜ@ದ, ಗುಂತಕ7ನ 2ರುವ aUb ಕ9ಾ@ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ 2
vಾZೊ4ೕಕW+ಾY ಂದೂ ಸಂಪ4=ಾಯದಂVೆ =ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪಣ ಪa ಯ ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯ
AೊVೆ C+ಾಹ TಾU(ೊa ರುVಾW"ೆ, ಮದು+ೆಯ ನಂತರ ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು ªÀÄÈVೆ
F4ೕಮB ಸG"ಾ=ೇC ರವ"ೊಂM ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ(ೆ* ಬಂದು oÁ ಾ ಸರಹMhನ
ೆಳ ಂದೂರು ೇg, ಸAಾ/ಪXರ ರZೆWಯ 2ರುವ F4ೕ Gತ4 ಅ ಾಟ/Pಂg ನ ಾ2g
ನಂ-113 ರ 2 +ಾಸ+ಾYರುVಾW"ೆ. C+ಾಹ ಆದ Lೊಸದರ 2 ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು
ಮೃತಳನುD iೆ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳE BWದುh, ಮೃತಳ ZಾಂZಾ ಕ 8ೕವನದ 2 ಒಬw ಗಂಡು
ಮಗು ಜj'ರುVಾW!ೆ. J1 ಆ"ೋbಯ ತಂ=ೆ ಎ2, Vಾl ಎ3, ಮತುW ಸಂY3ಾದ ಎ4
ಆ"ೋbಗಳE ೆಂಗಳ ನ ದ
2 h ಮೃತಳ ಮ!ೆ ೆ ಆ ಾಗ ಬಂದು LೋಗುBWದುh, ಮ!ೆ ೆ
ಬಂದ ಸಮಯದ 2 ಮೃತಳ ಬ ೆO ತುಂ ಾ kೕQಾY !ೋಡುVಾW, jೕನು ಹS lಂದ ಬಂದ
ಹುಡುY jನ ೆ ಸ 3ಾY ಇಂY2m ಬರುವXMಲ2, jೕನು 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸಕೂ* Zೇ (ೊಂUಲ2,
jನ ೆ 3ಾವ (ೆಲಸವƒ 'ಗುವXMಲ2 ಎಂದು _ೕ3ಾSಸುVಾW, jೕನು ಸತುWLೋದ"ೆ
ನಮ& ಹುಡುಗj ೆ ಮVೊWಂದು ಒQೆ ಹುಡುYಯನುD C+ಾಹ TಾಡುವX=ಾY LೇS
kರುಕುಳ jೕಡುBWದhರು ಮತುW ಎ1 ಆ"ೋbಯು ಎ2, ಎ3, ಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳ TಾತನುD
(ೇS(ೊಂಡು ಮೃತQೆ ಂM ೆ ಜಗಳ TಾಡುVಾW =ೈಕ ಮತುW Tಾನ'ಕ+ಾY kರುಕುಳ
jೕಡುBWರುVಾW!ೆ ಈ ಬ ೆO ಮೃVೆ ಸGೕ"ಾ =ೇC ರವರು ಬದುk=ಾhಗ ತನD ಗಂಡ ಮತುW
ಆ(ೆಯ ಮ!ೆಯವ"ಾದ ಎ1 ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE jೕಡುBWದh kರುಕುಳದ ಬ ೆO Zಾ]-
Zಾ]
1, Zಾ]-2,
Zಾ] Zಾ]-3
Zಾ] ಮತುW Zಾ]-4
Zಾ] ರವ"ೊಂM ೆ ದೂರ+ಾs ಮೂಲಕ Lಾಗೂ ಊ ೆ

                                                          NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

Lೋ=ಾಗ9ೆ9ಾ2 LೇS(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ.ೆ Zಾ]-1,
Zಾ] Zಾ]-2,
Zಾ] Zಾ]-3
Zಾ] ಮತುW Zಾ]-4
Zಾ] ರವರು
ಮೃತS ೆ ಸಂZಾ ಕ 8ೕವನದ ದೃ... lಂದ ಅನುಸ '(ೊಂಡು LೋಗುವಂVೆ ಬುMh+ಾದ
LೇSರುVಾW
LೇSರುVಾW"ೆ.ೆ
ಮೃVೆ F4ೕಮB ಸGೕ ಾ =ೇC ಯವ ೆ ಎ1 ಂದ ಎ4 ಆ"ೋbಗಳE jೕಡುBWದh
kರುಕುಳ Vಾಳ9ಾರ=ೇ ಮನ!ೊಂದು M!ಾಂಕ 16.07.2019 ರಂದು ೆS ೆO 8.30
ಗಂ,ೆlಂದ, ಮ=ಾ@ಹD 12-00 ಗಂ,ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ 2 ಮ!ೆಯ 2 3ಾರೂ ಇಲ2ದ
ಸಮಯದ 2 cೆR !ೋg ಬ"ೆMಟು , ಮ!ೆಯ Lಾ7ನ 2ನ 'ೕ ಂy ಾ@ ೆ
'ೕ"ೆlಂದ !ೇಣು rYದು(ೊಂಡು ಆತ&ಹVೆ@ TಾU(ೊಂUರುVಾW"ೆ.
ಆದh ಂದ ಆ"ೋbಗಳ Cರುದh Pೕಲ*ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳನ€ಯ =ೋ•ಾ"ೋಪ ಾ ಪa
ತ3ಾ '=ೆ."
(Emphasis added)

 Apart from the afore-quoted complaint and the summary

of the charge sheet, it becomes necessary to notice the

statement of the person who has translated the death note, in

which the observation is as follows:

".... .... ....

"b4ೕBಯ ಬಂಧುಬಳಗ(ೆ* ಬ"ೆಯುBWರುವ ನನD (ೊ!ೆಯ ಪತ4, ನನD ಗಂಡ ಬಂ ಾರ
ಆತ ನನDನುD ಚ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಂUದhನು. ದಯTಾU !ಾನು ಸತW ನಂತರ ಆತನ ತಂ,ೆ ೆ
Lೋಗ ೇU ಆತನನುD ಒಂದು Tಾತು ೈದರು ನನD ಆತ& ಸಂVೋಷ ಆಗುವXMಲ2. ನನD ಗಂಡ
ಬಂ ಾರ. ಅTಾ& jಮ& ಋಣ Bೕ '(ೊಳ ಲು ಪXನಃ jಮ& ಮ!ೆಯ 2ˆೕ ಹುಟ ೇ(ೆಂದು
(ೋ (ೊಳE BW=ೆh!ೆ. ನನD ಮಗ ಎಂದ"ೆ ನನ ೆ ಾ4ಣ ಆದ"ೆ 3ಾ(ೋ Zಾಯ ೇಕು
ಎjDಸುBW=ೆ, ಮಗ ವಂF ನನDನುD `Gಸು, jೕನು ಚ!ಾDY ಓM(ೊಂಡು =ೊಡŠ
ಮನುಷ@!ಾಗ ೇ(ೆಂದು ನನD (ೋ (ೆ. ನನD (ೊ!ೆಯ ಆZೆ !ೆರ+ೆ ಸು ನನD ಅVೆW Tಾವರವರು
ನನDನುD jಜ+ಾಗಲು ಚ!ಾDY !ೋU(ೊಳE BWದhರು. ಅವರನುD ಸಹ ಏನು ಅನD ೇU. ನನD
ಗಂಡj ೊಸ*ರ Zಾಯ ೇಕು ಅjDಸುBW=ೆ. ನಮ& ಮಗ ಹು•ಾರು ಅಮ " ಎಂದು
ಬ"ೆMರುVಾW"ೆ.

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

             !ಾನು cೆR!ೊg ಅನುD Vೆಲುಗು Œಾ•ೆಯ 2 ಓM ಅದನುD ಕನDಡದ 2 ತಜು/P
     TಾU LೇSದುh, !ಾನು ತಜು/P TಾU LೇSದhನುD ಕನDಡ Œಾ•ೆಯ 2 ,ೈ• TಾUದುh
     ಸ 3ಾYರುತW=ೆ."

If all the three are read together, there would be nothing

that can drive home the ingredients of the offences punishable

under Section 306 of the IPC.

1. The offences that are alleged against the petitioners

are the ones punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the

IPC. The interpretation of what would become an offence

under Section 498A of the IPC need not detain this Court for

long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case

of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1, wherein, it is

held as follows:

"Issue involved

1. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

(2022) 6 SCC 599 or 2022 SCC Online SC 162

• 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. Before we delve into greater detail on the
   nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
   pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section
   498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
   committed upon a woman by her husband and her
   in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
   However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
   matrimonial litigation in the country has also
   increased significantly and there is a greater
   disaffection and friction surrounding the institution
   of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted
   in an increased tendency to employ provisions such
   as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
   personal scores against the husband and his
   relatives.

2. This Court in its judgment in [Rajesh
   Sharma v. State of U.P. Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
   (2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has
   observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)

              "14. [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/) was inserted in the
      statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty
      at the hands of husband or his relatives against a
      wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to
      result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned
      in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46
      of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/) covers conduct which may drive the woman to
      commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or
      physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view
      to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.
      [Explanation to [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/).] It is a matter of
      serious concern that large number of cases continue
      to be filed under [Section 498-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/) alleging harassment
      of married women. We have already referred to
      some of the statistics from the Crime Records
      Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that
      most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the
      moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints
      are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the
      complaint, implications and consequences are not
      visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled
      for harassment not only to the accused but also to
      the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
      chances of settlement."
   

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
   Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
   Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC
   (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)

              "4. There is a phenomenal increase in
      matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution
      of marriage is greatly revered in this country.
      Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed
      object to combat the menace of harassment to a
      woman at the hands of her husband and his
      relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
      cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
      dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that
      are used as weapons rather than shield by
      disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to
      get the husband and his relatives arrested under this
      provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden
      grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands,
      their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
   

2. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
   Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
   SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
   observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

              "32. It is a matter of common experience
      that most of these complaints under [Section 498-](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1868826/) A [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial
      issues without proper deliberations. We come across
      a large number of such complaints which are not
      even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
      the same time, rapid increase in the number of
      genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter
      of serious concern.
   

3. The learned members of the Bar have
   enormous social responsibility and obligation to
   ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined
   or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated
   versions of small incidents should not be reflected in
   the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints
   are filed either on their advice or with their
   concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who
   belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble
   traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must
   make serious endeavour to help the parties in
   arriving at an amicable resolution of that human

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

       problem. They must discharge their duties to the
       best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre,
       peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact.
       The members of the Bar should also ensure that one
       complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

1. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
   complaint the implications and consequences are not
   properly visualised by the complainant that such
   complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,
   agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
   close relations.

2. The ultimate object of justice is to find
   out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the
   innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in
   majority of these complaints. The tendency of
   implicating the husband and all his immediate
   relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after
   the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
   ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
   extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
   complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
   consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
   The allegations of harassment of husband's close
   relations who had been living in different cities and
   never visited or rarely visited the place where the
   complainant resided would have an entirely different
   complexion. The allegations of the complaint are
   required to be scrutinised with great care and
   circumspection.

3. Experience reveals that long and
   protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
   and bitterness in the relationship amongst the
   parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
   that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
   or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
   for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
   amicable settlement altogether. The process of
   suffering is extremely long and painful."

4. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
   Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1
   SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed
   : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

             "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
      note of an apt observation of this Court recorded
      in [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169522737/) v. L.H.V.
   

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

       Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
       wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
       held that the High Court should have quashed the
       complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
       wherein all family members had been roped into the
       matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
       aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which
       we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)

               '12. ... There has been an outburst of
       matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
       sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
       enable the young couple to settle down in life and
       live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
       suddenly erupt which often assume serious
       proportions resulting in commission of heinous
       crimes in which elders of the family are also involved
       with the result that those who could have counselled
       and brought about rapprochement are rendered
       helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
       criminal case. There are many other reasons which
       need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
       matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder
       over their defaults and terminate their disputes
       amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it
       out in a court of law where it takes years and years
       to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
       "young" days in chasing their cases in different
       courts.'

 The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
 courts would not encourage such disputes."

1. Recently, in [K. Subba Rao v. State of
   Telangana K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018)
   14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also
   observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

              "6. ... The courts should be careful in
      proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
      pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
      deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be
      roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
      specific instances of their involvement in the crime
      are made out."
   

2. The abovementioned decisions clearly
   demonstrate that this Court has at numerous

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

 instances expressed concern over the misuse of
 Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of
 implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
 disputes,   without     analysing   the   long-term
 ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well
 as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
 judgments that false implication by way of general
 omnibus allegations made in the course of
 matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
 in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
 Court by way of its judgments has warned the
 courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-
 laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
 made out against them.

1. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
   perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is
   revealed that general allegations are levelled against the
   appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused
   harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating
   her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct
   allegations have been made against either of the
   appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been
   attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
   allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
   situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
   each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
   allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
   at best be said to have been made out on account of
   small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
   he has not appealed against the order of the High Court,
   we have not examined the veracity of allegations made
   against him. However, as far as the appellants are
   concerned, the allegations made against them being
   general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

2. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
   harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
   previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar,
   contends that the present FIR pertained to offences
   committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given
   by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal
   Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein
   for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the
   assurances, all accused continued their demands and

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

 harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts
 constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
 question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and
 independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an
 earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.

1. Here it must be borne in mind that
   although the two FIRs may constitute two
   independent instances, based on separate
   transactions, the present complaint fails to
   establish specific allegations against the in-laws of
   the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the
   absence of clear allegations against the appellant
   in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the
   process of law.

2. Therefore, upon consideration of the
   relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
   specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it
   would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go
   through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and
   omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation
   where the relatives of the complainant's husband
   are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
   by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal
   trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
   severe scars upon the accused, and such an
   exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."

(Emphasis supplied)

 8.1. The Apex Court in the case of MARAM NIRMALA v.

STATE OF TELANGANA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

2913, has held as follows:

"..... ..... .....

1. The appellant(s) herein are the mother-in-law and father- in-law of respondent No. 2. They had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings instituted against them in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

 Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda
 alleging   offences    punishable   under [Sections 498-](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1868826/) A, 323, 504 read with [Section 34](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37788/) of the IPC and [Sections 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751411/) and [4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1023340/) of the DP Act.

1. By the impugned order, the said criminal petition
   has been disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant(s)
   herein to seek discharge in accordance with law. Hence,
   this appeal.

2. The case at hand pertains to allegations of
   cruelty and dowry demand made by the respondent
   No. 2 against the appellant(s) herein. A bare perusal
   of the FIR however, shows that the allegations made
   by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus
   inasmuch as there is an absence of any specific
   instance or occasion detailed with particulars
   wherein the appellant(s) demanded dowry from
   respondent No. 2 and on refusal of the same,
   subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The
   only allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against
   the appellants herein are that subsequent to the birth
   of her daughter, the conduct of her husband
   underwent a change, which is stated to have been on
   account of the alleged inducement exercised by the
   in-laws including the appellant(s) herein for the
   purpose of demanding additional dowry and that
   pursuant to the counselling conducted at the Women
   Police Station, Nalgonda, although the husband of
   respondent No. 2 and his family assured that she
   would be treated properly, they nevertheless
   continued to subject respondent No. 2 to mental and
   physical cruelty.

3. We therefore find that the aforesaid allegations
   levelled against the appellant(s), even if taken at their face
   value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of the
   alleged offences so as to warrant the initiation of criminal
   proceedings.

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. During the course of submissions, learned
   counsel for the appellant(s) brought to our notice the
   judgment of this Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi
   Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 ("Dara
   Lakshmi Narayana") as well as other judgments which
   squarely apply to this case. We have perused the same.

2. This Court speaking through one of us (B.V.
   Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, while dealing
   with the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings instituted
   by the respondent wife therein against her husband and in-
   laws who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP
   Act, 1961, held as follows:

"27. A mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case arising out of
a matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience,
that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband's family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis
for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family
members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who
are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent
2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.

xxx

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

xxx

1. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

xxx

1. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in [Bhajan Lal State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." (underlining by us)

1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana would apply. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The proceedings instituted against the appellant(s) in C.C. No. 338/2023 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise offence) at Nalgonda stand quashed in relation to the appellants herein."

(Emphasis supplied)

 If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, i.e., the

complaint, the summary of the charge sheet and the statement

made in the death note are taken note of, what would

unmistakably emerge is, permitting further proceedings against

the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 would become an abuse of

the process of the law qua the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. What remains is the offence under Section 306 of the

IPC. For an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the

ingredients under Section 307 of the IPC are necessarily to be

present. Section 107 reads as follows:

"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the
doing of a thing, who--

First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
or

Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from
a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact
and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is
Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C.
Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in order
to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act."
(Emphasis supplied)

• 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment. The

interpretation of Section 107 or 306 of the IPC need not detain

this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex

Court in the case of GEETA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

1. For the purpose of examining whether the
   ingredients of Section 306 are attracted, we take the
   prosecution case as it is. Taken at its highest, there is
   definitely evidence on record to show that over a period of
   few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While the
   victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the
   appellant's family have also had a grievance about the
   victim and her family scolding the children of the
   appellant's household. There is no doubt that not only were
   there heated exchanges, but physical blows were also
   alleged to have been administered by the appellant's party.
   Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today
   the appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable
   under Section 323. She stands acquitted even for the
   offences punishable under Section 504 and 506. The State
   has not preferred any appeal.

2. Even if we were to assume that physical
   blows were administered, will that per se constitute
   abetment to suicide? This Court in a case where the
   accused told the deceased "go and die" and when
   thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved
   the accused of the charge under Section 306 by
   holding as under:

"3. ...Those words are casual nature
which are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people. Nothing
serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said
act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on

• 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

the assumption that these words would be
carried out in all events. ..."
[Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995
Supp (3) SCC 438]

1. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
   Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring
   out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific
   abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the
   part of the accused with an intention to bring about
   the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that
   abetment is required. It was further held that the
   intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to
   abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
   attracting Section 306.

2. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
   West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that
   the harassment meted out to the victim should have
   left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
   end to his/her life.

3. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626,
   this Court followed the dictum in Ramesh
   Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618,
   wherein it was held as under:

"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar has examined different shades of the
meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty
to incite the consequence must be capable
of being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word

• 24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence and material
available on record wherefrom an inference of the
appellant-accused having abetted commission of
suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may
necessarily be drawn."

Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:--

1. 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."
2. This Court in Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents held as under:--

"18. As has been held hereinabove, to
satisfy the requirement of instigation the
accused by his act or omission or by a continued
course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide. It was
also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger
and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said
to be instigation."
23. Applying the tests laid down hereinabove,
we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that
when the appellant's family and the victim's family
had heated exchanges, there was any intention to
abet or to cause any member of either family to take
their own life. These quarrels occur in everyday life,
and on facts we are not able to conclude that there
was an instigation on the part of the appellant to

• 25 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

 such an extent that the victim was left with no other
 option but to commit suicide."

(Emphasis supplied)

 9.1. In its latest judgment, the Apex Court in the case of [YADWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111554880/) reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 2332, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

1. This Court in the case of " Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh ", 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:--

"13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is
well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:--

"306. Abetment of suicide. --If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death
and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined
under Section 107 of the IPC as under:--

"107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets
the doing of a thing, who--

First. -- Instigates any person to do that thing;
or

Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or

• 26 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.-- A person who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.

Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at
the time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid
the doing of that act."
17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of
Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering
the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with
the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the
IPC, has observed as under:--

"14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment
of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes
punishment for the same.

1. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word 'instigate' as under:

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an
act".
16. The scope and ambit of Section
107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this
Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:--

"25. 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. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by the

• 27 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

Supreme Court is 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 that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide."
(emphasis supplied)

1. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an
   offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand
   fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased
   due to direct and alarming encouragement
   /incitement by the accused leaving no option but to
   commit suicide. The act of instigation as alleged
   must be with the intention to push the deceased
   into such a situation that she is left with no other
   option but to commit suicide.

2. In the case on hand, even if we believe
   that the appellant due to opposition and pressure
   from his family declined to get married with the
   deceased, it could not be said that he led to a
   situation by which the deceased was left with no
   other option but to commit the suicide. The
   appellant could not be said to have intended the
   consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very
   sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step
   of ending her life. It is possible that she might have
   felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life
   of a young girl. However, as judges we should not
   allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts.
   We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of
   the evidence on record. In other words whether the
   allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere
   refusal to marry even if true by itself would not
   amount to instigation as explained under Section
   107 of the IPC."

(Emphasis supplied)

• 28 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

  The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments has clearly

interpreted what could become the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. If the ingredients as found in Section 107 of the

IPC is completely met, Section 306 of the IPC would kick in. A

perusal at the summary of the charge sheet, the complaint or

the statement made in the death note, nowhere would indicate

even an iota of all these ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC

being met for it to become an offence punishable under [Section

306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) of the IPC. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court

as quoted hereinabove, further proceedings even qua the

offence under Section 306 of the IPC, against the petitioners -

accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be permitted to be continued.

If further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would

become an abuse of the process of the law and result in

miscarriage of justice. It is no doubt true that a precious life is

lost; it is lost on manifold circumstances as the human mind is

an enigma. Therefore, permitting trial to continue against the

petitioners, who are not prima facie involved in the act, to face

the rigmarole of the criminal trial, would become an abuse of

the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

• 29 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13417

HC-KAR

1. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.

b. The proceedings in S.C.No.1997/2022 (arising out of
Crime No.224/2019), pending on the file of the LXXI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-72),
Bengaluru, qua the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4,
stand quashed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
CT:SS