SRI CHARMSUNDAR @ SHYAM SUNDAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 845 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHARMSUNDAR @ SHYAM SUNDAR
SON OF LATE SELVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.218, A BLOCK, 2 FLOOR,
MAHAVEER RHYOLITE APARTMENTS,
VINAYAKANAGARA, NYANAPPANAHALLI AREKERE,
BANGALORE - 560 068
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU P.S,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH FIR, CHARGESHEET AND THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS SC.1487/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND IN SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-72),
BANGALORE, INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BASED ON
THE STATEMENT OF DECEASED SMT. VEENA OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
UNDER SECTION 498A, 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF I.P.C, 1860, WHICH
IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B TO D AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Quash FIR, chargesheet and the entire
proceedings SC.1487/2022 pending on the
file of LXXI Additional City Civil and in
Sessions Judge (CCH-72), Bangalore,
initiated as against the petitioner based on
the statement of deceased smt. veena
offences punishable under section 498A, 306
r/w section 34 of I.P.C, 1860, which is
produced at annexure-b to d;
b. Issue any other order or direction that deems
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice and equity.
2. On the basis of the statement of the deceased Veena
recorded on 17.03.2022, Crime No.84/2022 came to
be registered by Hulimavu Police Station for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
Subsequently, the said Veena having succumbed to
the burn injuries sustained by her, and investigation
having been completed, a charge-sheet came to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The matter
is presently pending in S.C. No.1487/2022 before the
LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. It is challenging the said proceedings that
the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the deceased was not legally
married to the petitioner, inasmuch as the
petitioner's earlier marriage had not been dissolved.
Consequently, the alleged marriage between the
petitioner and the deceased would not constitute a
valid marriage in the eye of law and the provisions of
Section 498A of the IPC would not be attracted.
4. It is further submitted that there was no intention or
conduct on the part of the petitioner which could be
construed as having instigated or abetted the
deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner contends
that there were matrimonial differences between the
parties and, in that background, proceedings for
dissolution of marriage had also been initiated. The
mere fact that the deceased was prevented from
entering the apartment complex cannot, by itself,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
constitute an offence punishable under Section 306
of the IPC.
5. The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the
statements of the deceased, is that she and the
petitioner had got married in Chennai and,
thereafter, shifted to Bengaluru and commenced
residing together. The deceased alleged that the
petitioner was habituated to consuming alcohol every
day, would return home late and abuse her. It was
further alleged that the petitioner had started
insisting that she obtain a divorce from him.
6. In that background, the deceased had travelled to
Chennai and remained there for about four days.
Upon returning to Bengaluru on 16.03.2022, at
approximately 4.30 p.m., she was informed by the
security guard of the apartment complex that the
petitioner had instructed him not to permit her to
enter the apartment. Aggrieved by the said conduct,
the deceased went to a nearby petrol bunk, procured
petrol, poured it over herself and set herself on fire.
The persons present at the spot rescued her and
shifted her to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, where her
statement came to be recorded on 17.03.2022.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
7. A further statement of the deceased was recorded by
the Tahsildar on 18.03.2022 in the presence of the
Professor and Head of the Department of Plastic
Surgery, Bangalore Medical College and Research
Institute (BMCRI), Bengaluru.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the
statements made by the deceased categorically
disclose the harassment meted out to her by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations are not
confined to an isolated matrimonial dispute but
disclose continuing harassment, abuse and insistence
upon the deceased obtaining a divorce. The
petitioner had also allegedly instructed the security
guard not to permit the deceased to enter the
matrimonial home upon her return from Chennai.
9. Learned HCGP further submits that the deceased, in
her statements, has attributed the circumstances
leading to her committing suicide to the conduct of
the petitioner. The statements of the other witnesses
recorded during investigation also lend support to the
prosecution case. It is therefore submitted that the
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 306 of the IPC are prima facie made out
and that the same require examination during trial.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
10. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar M., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP
appearing for respondent-State. Perused the papers.
11. The principal objections raised on behalf of the
petitioner are twofold. Firstly, that there was no
legally valid marriage between the petitioner and the
deceased, and consequently Section 498A of the IPC
would not be attracted. Secondly, that there was no
instigation or intentional aid on the part of the
petitioner which could constitute abetment of suicide
under Section 306 of the IPC.
12. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, this
Court, in Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka ,
in Crl.P. No.8134/2024 and connected matter,
decided on 18.11.2025, considered the question as
to whether the offence punishable under Section
498A of the IPC could be attracted in a case where
the relationship between the parties did not
constitute a legally valid marriage. This Court held
that the protective ambit of Section 498A could
extend even to relationships in the nature of
marriage, including qualifying live-in relationships.
13. The said decision was thereafter considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. and Others
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
v. State of Karnataka and Another , [2026 INSC
784, decided on 03.08.2026] . The Hon'ble Apex
Court, while examining the scope and applicability of
Section 498A of the IPC, has held that the expression
'husband' cannot be confined only to a person who is
in a legally valid marriage with the woman
concerned.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the protection
under Section 498A extends to a relationship in the
nature of marriage, provided the relationship
satisfies the requisite attributes of a marital
relationship and carries an intention to marry as an
intrinsic part thereof. It has also clarified that the
extended protection is confined to relationships
between two consenting adults and that not every
live-in relationship would qualify for such protection.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately held that the
proceedings in the said case were not liable to be
quashed and permitted the trial to continue.
16. In the present case, the specific allegation of the
deceased is that she and the petitioner had got
married in Chennai and thereafter shifted to
Bengaluru and resided together as husband and wife.
The petitioner seeks to avoid the application of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
Section 498A on the ground that his earlier marriage
had not been dissolved. However, the mere
circumstance that the purported marriage may not
be legally valid on account of the subsistence of an
earlier marriage would not, by itself, furnish a ground
to conclude that Section 498A of the IPC is
inapplicable.
17. The question whether the relationship between the
petitioner and the deceased was a purported marital
relationship or a relationship in the nature of
marriage satisfying the requirements laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court is not one which can be
conclusively determined in the present proceedings,
particularly when the deceased herself asserted that
she had married the petitioner and the parties had
thereafter commenced living together.
18. In that view of the matter, the first contention raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted as a ground for quashing the proceedings.
19. Insofar as the allegations constituting cruelty under
Section 498A of the IPC are concerned, the
statements of the deceased disclose that the
petitioner was habituated to consuming alcohol,
would return home late, abuse her and repeatedly
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
insist upon her obtaining a divorce. The deceased
had also alleged that, upon returning from Chennai,
she was prevented from entering the apartment
where the parties were residing, at the instance of
the petitioner.
20. The allegations are required to be considered
cumulatively and not as isolated incidents. The
explanation appended to Section 498A of the IPC
includes within its ambit willful conduct of such a
nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit
suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life,
limb or health, whether mental or physical.
21. Whether the conduct attributed to the petitioner
satisfies the statutory definition of cruelty is a matter
which would require appreciation of the evidence.
However, taking the allegations contained in the
statements of the deceased at their face value, it
cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 498A
of the IPC are wholly absent.
22. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 306
of the IPC is concerned, the same requires
independent consideration. It is well settled that the
mere fact that a woman has committed suicide or
that she was subjected to matrimonial harassment
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
would not, by itself, establish the commission of an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
23. For attracting the said provision, there must be
material indicating abetment within the meaning of
Section 107 of the IPC, which includes instigation,
engaging in a conspiracy or intentional aid in the
commission of the act. There must be the requisite
mens rea and a proximate connection between the
conduct attributed to the accused and the
commission of suicide.
24. Mere harassment is insufficient to establish the
offence of abetment of suicide. There must be a clear
mens rea on the part of the accused and an active or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.
The requisite intention cannot be presumed merely
from the fact that the deceased ultimately took her
own life.
25. A proximate and positive act of instigation and a
clear nexus between such act and the commission of
suicide is required. The absence of a reasonable
nexus between the conduct attributed to the accused
and the date of suicide is a relevant circumstance in
examining the applicability of Section 306 of the IPC.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, it is to be noticed that the prosecution
is not relying merely upon the fact that the deceased
and the petitioner were involved in matrimonial
disputes or that the petitioner had sought dissolution
of the relationship.
27. The specific allegation is that the petitioner had, on
the return of the deceased from Chennai, instructed
the security guard of the apartment complex not to
permit her to enter the apartment. The deceased,
upon being informed of the said instruction, is stated
to have immediately thereafter procured petrol,
poured it over herself and set herself on fire.
28. The said incident is alleged to have occurred on
16.03.2022. The statement of the deceased was
recorded on the following day, namely, 17.03.2022,
and a further statement was recorded by the
Tahsildar on 18.03.2022 in the presence of the
Professor and Head of the Department of Plastic
Surgery, BMCRI, Bengaluru.
29. Thus, the prosecution relies upon not merely the
allegation of continuing matrimonial discord but also
a specific incident immediately preceding the act of
self-immolation. The deceased, in her statements,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
has attributed the circumstances leading to the said
incident to the conduct of the petitioner, which would
assume the status of a dying declaration.
30. The circumstances surrounding the return of the
deceased from Chennai, the alleged instruction given
by the petitioner to the security guard, the deceased
being denied entry into the apartment and her
immediate act of self-immolation constitute a
sequence of events which requires examination at
trial.
31. Whether the petitioner had the requisite intention to
instigate or aid the commission of suicide, whether
his conduct had the necessary proximity and causal
connection with the act of the deceased, and whether
the other ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are
satisfied are matters which would require
examination of the evidence.
32. This Court is conscious that an offence under Section
306 of the IPC cannot be treated as an automatic
consequence of an offence under Section 498A of the
IPC. The mere existence of cruelty, even if
established, would not invariably result in the
commission of an offence of abetment of suicide.
However, in the peculiar facts of the present case,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
the prosecution relies upon a specific incident alleged
to have occurred immediately before the deceased
set herself on fire, apart from the allegations of
continuing harassment.
33. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this
Court to isolate the alleged denial of entry into the
apartment from the other circumstances narrated by
the deceased and determine whether such conduct,
in the overall factual background, constituted
instigation or intentional aid. The same would require
examination of the statements of the witnesses, the
circumstances in which the deceased sustained the
burn injuries and the other material collected during
investigation.
34. The statements of the deceased, which the
prosecution relies upon as dying declarations, were
recorded on two occasions. The first statement was
recorded at Victoria Hospital on 17.03.2022, while
the subsequent statement was recorded by the
Tahsildar on 18.03.2022 in the presence of the
Professor and Head of the Department of Plastic
Surgery, BMCRI, Bengaluru.
35. The evidentiary value, reliability and admissibility of
the said statements, as also the circumstances in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
which they were recorded, are matters which the
Trial Court would have to consider in accordance with
law. At this stage, the Court cannot disregard the
statements merely because the petitioner disputes
the allegations made therein. Equally, no conclusive
finding as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations
can be recorded in the present proceedings.
36. In the present case, when the allegations contained
in the statements of the deceased are considered
along with the other material collected during
investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings
are wholly devoid of any basis for prosecuting the
petitioner for the offences alleged. The questions
regarding the nature of the relationship between the
parties, the alleged cruelty, the circumstances
immediately preceding the act of self-immolation and
the petitioner's alleged role therein are all matters
requiring adjudication.
37. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that no ground has been made out for exercising the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR,
charge-sheet and the proceedings in S.C.
No.1487/2022. All contentions raised by the
petitioner, including the question as to whether the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56986
CRL.P No. 845 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010037392025
alleged conduct satisfies the ingredients of Section
306 of the IPC, are left open for consideration by the
Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed before
it.
38. Accordingly, this Court passes the following
ORDER
dismissed
(i) The petition is .
(ii) The proceedings in S.C. No.1487/2022 pending
on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-72), Bengaluru, shall
continue in accordance with law.
(iii) All contentions of the petitioner on the merits of
the matter are kept open.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are confined to the consideration
of the present petition and shall not influence
the Trial Court while adjudicating the matter on
its merits.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9