Vinod vs State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

## 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 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri Vinod S/O. Ishwar Angrolli vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025

                    HC-KAR

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

                             DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                            BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100275 OF 2025
                                    (482 ([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/)) / 528 (BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. VINOD S/O. ISHWAR ANGROLLI
                   AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
                   R/O. H.NO.1/191, K.H.B. COLONY,
                   D.N.KOPPA, SAMPIGENAGAR,
                   DHARWAD-580008.
                                                                ... PETITIONER
                   (BY SMT. RASHMI P.MANDI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

VISHAL
NINGAPPA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PATTIHAL REPRESENTED BY THE PP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. RAMESH S/O. MYLARAPPA HADAPAD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH R/O. RENUKAMBA NILAYA, SIDDHARTH COLONY,
MALAPRABHA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

                         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
                   (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR WITH
                   RESPECT TO THE DHARWAD SUB-URBAN PS CRIME
                   NO.191/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 306 R/W 34 OF [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD,
                   IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2; AND ETC.
                           -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
                                   CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025

HC-KAR

 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                     ORAL ORDER 1.     This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner

herein (accused No.2) under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.191 of 2022 of Dharwad

Sub-Urban Police Station, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

1. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint and the

same came to be registered in Crime No.191 of 2022 of

Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station against the petitioner and

other accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner who has been

arrayed as accused No.2 in the FIR has sought quashing of

the proceedings in Crime No.191 of 2022 of Dharwad Sub-

Urban Police Station

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

appearing for respondent No.1, the State. In spite of service of

notice to respondent No.2, he remains absent and

unrepresented.

1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that the deceased - Mailarappa, the father of

respondent No.2 had borrowed money from the petitioner and

other accused persons and when they insisted for the

repayment of the said loan amount, he alleged to have

committed suicide. She further contends that there is suicidal

tendency of deceased Mailarappa, which can be seen in the

averments of the complaint where once he alleged to have

attempted to commit suicide on 23.12.2021 by consuming

poison. She further contends that that mere demand for the

repayment of loan does not amount to abatement and on that

point she places reliance on the decision of this Court in the

case of MANGALA GOWRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1.

Hence, she contends that continuation of the proceedings

against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. 1 2023 SCC Online KAR 64 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

She further submits that this Court has quashed the

proceedings against accused No.3 in Crl. P. No.100087 of

1. The said accused No.3 is also the person who has lent

the money to the deceased and allegation against him is also

similar to that of the present petitioner. With this, she prayed

to allow this petition.

1. Per Contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that there is a death note left by the

deceased - Mailarappa wherein it is written that the accused

persons are responsible for his death. The accused persons

were insisting the deceased to repay the loan amount. The

deceased fed up with demand, has committed suicide leaving

a death note. He contends that there are no grounds for

quashing the proceedings. With this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the petition.

1. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

perused complaint, FIR and other material placed on record. -5-

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. On perusal of the averments of the complaint, the

allegation against accused persons is that they lent money to

the deceased - Mailarappa and they were insisting the

deceased - Mailarappa to repay the amount borrowed. The

deceased fed up with the said demand made by accused

persons has once attempted to commit suicide i.e., on

23.12.2021. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on

09.09.2022 by hanging to the ceiling fan in his house. A

death note was also found wherein it was written that

accused persons are responsible for his death.

1. The essential ingredients of offence under [Section

306](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92983/) of IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused

to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The

act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using

abusive language will not by itself constitute the abetment of

suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that

the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to

commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused

cannot be convicted under Section 306 of IPC.

1. Mere demand and insistence for repayment of loan

amount does not amount to abetment. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of M. ARJUN Vs. STATE2 has observed

thus:

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

to the deceased and uttered some words. The Hon'ble Apex

Court held, that by itself is not sufficient to constitute offence

under Section 306 of IPC. In that case also deceased had left

a death note.

2 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 43 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [M. MOHAN

Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1153850/) has held as under:

"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained.

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. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner

-accused No.2 to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The

petitioner -accused No.2 intended in getting back the money

advanced by him to the deceased. Human sensitivity of each

individual differs from person to person. Each individual has

his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Different people

behave differently in the same situation.

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [SANJU

ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/393648/) 3 (2011) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 626 -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

has held that, words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of

moment, such as 'to go and die', cannot be taken to be

uttered with mens rea.

1. This Court in MANGALA GOWRI 's case (supra)

has held as under:

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

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

1. On the consideration of the evidence on record, there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of the appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and 4 (2002) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 371 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025 HC-KAR

threatening him to take his life does not amounts to
abetment. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has
committed an error in holding that the act of the
appellant/accused amount to abetment to the deceased
Raju to commit suicide."
15. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner -

accused No.2 merely insisting and demanding the deceased

to repay the loan amount does not amount to abetment to

commit suicide. In view of the same, continuation of the

proceedings against the petitioner - accused No. 2 is an abuse

of process of law. In the result, the following

                             ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner -

accused No.2 in Crime No.191 of 2022 of
Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station
registered for offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC
are quashed.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39