Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty has allowed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings in a criminal case registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court held that the allegations contained in the First Information Report (FIR) did not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offence. Consequently, the court exercised its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, directing that the entire proceedings arising from the FIR be quashed. The order terminates the case initiated by the police on the basis of a complaint involving allegations connected to the suicide of the petitioner’s husband. The bench concluded that the materials on record did not establish any direct or proximate act by the petitioner that could be said to have abetted, instigated, or aided the commission of suicide as required under the statutory provision invoked.

The matter originated from a complaint lodged on 26 January 2025 by the brother of the deceased, leading to registration of Crime No. 5/2025 at Ashoknagar Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad. The complainant alleged that the deceased, aged about 40, had married the petitioner approximately two years prior to the registration of the FIR. According to the complaint, the couple lived together for about three months following the marriage, after which the petitioner returned to her parental home. The complainant asserted that multiple efforts to persuade the petitioner to rejoin her husband were unsuccessful.

Also Read: Fraudulent Settlement Sparks Supreme Court Recall | Detailed Bar Council Probe Ordered Into ‘Well-Planned Conspiracy’ And Forged Representation

On the date in question, between 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., the deceased allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence. A purported death note was recovered, stating that his wife desired his death and had subjected him to torture. Based on this information, police registered a case under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and commenced investigation.

Records before the court indicated that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased had been solemnised on 8 December 2022. The relationship was marked by prolonged separation; the deceased filed M.C. No. 223/2024 before the jurisdictional Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, while the petitioner initiated Crl. Misc. No. 89/2024 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the deceased and his relatives, including the complainant.

During the pendency of these matrimonial proceedings, the deceased committed suicide. The death note did not specify any act or incident establishing a proximate link between the petitioner’s conduct and the act of suicide. The prosecution relied on the note and the prior marital discord to support the charge.

The petition before the High Court sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings on the grounds that the allegations did not make out the offence as defined under Section 108 BNS 2023, which corresponds to the offence of abetment of suicide.

The court examined the statutory requirement for an offence under Section 108 BNS 2023, noting that the act alleged must have both proximity and nexus to the death of the deceased, and must constitute abetment, instigation, or aid to the commission of suicide.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024 INSC 1020), the court cited: "Even in we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die' that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea."

The court also relied on Mariano Anto Bruno and Another v. Inspector of Police (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387), where it was held: "To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent."

Further, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2001) 9 SCC 618), the Supreme Court had stated: "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'... A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." The judgment also stated careful assessment of facts to determine if the cruelty alleged actually induced the victim to commit suicide, warning against findings based on hypersensitivity to ordinary domestic discord.

In Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 737), the principle was recorded: "Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it 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."

Also Read: Candidate’s Involvement In Gambling-Related Activities Involves Moral Turpitude | Bombay HC Says Cannot Compel Consideration For Public Service

Applying these precedents, the court found that the complaint lacked allegations satisfying the necessary legal threshold. It was undisputed that the petitioner and the deceased had lived apart for over a year and that the only specific allegation in the death note was a general assertion of torture without detailing acts proximate to the death.

Having considered the allegations in light of settled legal principles, the court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty ordered that the petition be allowed. The court directed that the entire proceeding in Crime No. 5/2025, registered by Ashoknagar Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS 2023, be quashed in its entirety.

The order stated: "Petition is allowed. The entire proceeding in Crime No. 5/2025, registered by Ashoknagar Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS 2023, is quashed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Sachin C. Angadi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, HCGP; Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, Advocate

Case Title: Feebi Gottam v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:9393

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 100661 of 2025

Bench: Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty