SMT RANJITHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2083 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANJITHA,
W/O LATE PRADEEP,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
D/O OMKARAPPA,
V. BANNIHATTI,
VADDANAHAL (P), CHANNAGIRI (T),
DAVANAGERE (D)-577215,
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. SRI. OMKARAPPA D.S.,
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
V. BANNIHATTI,
VADDANAHAL (P), CHANNAGIRI (T),
DAVANAGERE (D)-577215,
KARNATAKA STATE.
3. SMT. PREMA,
W/O SRI. OMKARAPPA D.S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
V. BANNIHATTI,
VADDANAHAL (P), CHANNAGIRI (T),
DAVANAGERE (D)-577215,
KARNATAKA STATE.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY AGUMBE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SRI. NINGAPPA M.,
S/O PARIMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KANADASAALU BADAVANE,
NEAR MANJUNATHA TALKIES,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
DAVANAGERE (D),
9535443006.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. N.R. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4/2021 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 34 OF IPC ON
THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
2. The prayer is sought for quashing the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.4/2021 invoking the
offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein
allegations are made against the wife as well as in-laws of the
deceased. The complainant made allegation against all of them
that marriage engagement occurred on 09.08.2020 and
marriage was performed on 16.08.2020. Thereafter, the wife
had disclosed that she was not interested to marry him and the
said statement was made on the very next day of the marriage
i.e., on 17.08.2020 and though she was not willing to marry
the deceased, but she married only to satisfy her parents and
also not only disclosed the same, even caused threat to
husband not to disclose the same. If he discloses the same, she
will file a dowry case against him and also his parents and she
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
has adopted blackmail tactics against him. As a result, the son
lost his confidence in the wife and he took the extreme step of
committing suicide and he committed suicide. Hence,
allegations are made against the wife that on account of her
conduct itself, he took the extreme step and committed suicide.
Even though the said fact was brought to the notice of accused
Nos.2 and 3, they also did not pursue the issue. Hence, all of
them are responsible for the death of the deceased. It is also
stated that the said fact was also brought to the notice of his
brother-in-law as well as his friend and during the
investigation, statement of these witnesses were also recorded
by the police and cited the witnesses C.W.1 to 23 to
substantiate the offence under Section 306 read with Section
34 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the allegation made in the complaint is that only
with an intention to harass the petitioners and to wreck
vengeance and no such ingredient of offence under Section 306
read with Section 34 of IPC attracts. The counsel also would
submit that the deceased died voluntarily and he left the house
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
th
on 8 August, 2020 itself and later came to know that he had
committed suicide and there is no proximity to cause of death.
4. The counsel also in support of his argument relied
upon judgment of the Apex Court delivered in CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.611/2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.2550/2010 in M. MOHAN vs. THE STATE
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE dated 01.03.2011 and brought to notice of this Court
particularly paragraph No.37, wherein the Apex Court dealt
with regard to ingredients of offence under Section 306 and so
also, counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.40,
wherein also discussion was made with regard to ‘Abetment of
a thing’ under Section 107 and referring this judgment, the
counsel would contend that there is no ingredients of offence
under Section 306 and also abetment to commit suicide.
Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. or otherwise it amounts to miscarriage of justice.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-complainant would vehemently contend that
specific allegations are made against the wife and on the very
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
next day of her marriage, she had disclosed that she was not
interested to marry him and she would have informed the same
to her parents prior to the marriage and after contracting
marriage, on the next day, expressed that she was not willing
to marry him and even when the said fact was brought to
notice of accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents and they
also did not pursue the matter. As a result, the deceased took
the extreme step of committing suicide and it is a matter of
trial with regard to whether there is proximity to cause of death
and also as to blackmailing attitude of the wife. Hence, it is not
a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State would submit that having considered
the contents of complaint dated 14.09.2020, police have
registered the case and investigated the matter and recorded
the statement of witnesses C.W.1 to C.W.23 and some of the
witnesses gave the statement that the deceased before
committing suicide informed the conduct of petitioner No.1 i.e.,
the wife and the said statement is also recorded and the same
is a matter of trial.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1-State, the Court has to look into the
contents of Document No.1 i.e., complaint and based on the
complaint, Document No.2 FIR was registered and thereafter,
police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet
as per Document No.3 and while filing the charge sheet also,
recorded the statement of complainant i.e., C.W.1 and so also,
C.W.2 and C.W.3, who are the inquest witnesses and C.Ws.9,
10, 11 and 12 are cited as eye witnesses and C.W.13 is the
Panchayathdar. When statements are made that deceased
before committing suicide had informed about the blackmailing
conduct of petitioner No.1 and specific allegations are made
that on the very next day of marriage on 17.08.2020 itself, she
has expressed that she was not interested to marry him which
has resulted in taking extreme step of committing suicide. No
doubt, it has emerged during the investigation that he left the
house on 08.09.2020 without informing any family members
i.e., within one month of marriage and it is clear that this
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
marriage was subsisting for a period of 20 days. When specific
allegations are made against the wife that she indulged in
instigating her husband to take extreme decision to commit
suicide and the same requires trial and the Court has to look
into the statement of witnesses with whom he made the
statement before committing the suicide.
8. However, only allegation made against petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 i.e., in-laws is that even though the conduct of the
wife is brought to their notice, they did not properly respond to
the same. Hence, they have been arraigned as petitioner Nos.2
and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 and in order to attract Section 306
of IPC as contended by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, there must be proximity to cause of death and the
same is not found, except an omnibus allegation that they did
not respond when the same was brought to their notice. Hence,
there cannot be invoking of Section 306 of IPC against accused
Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and
3/accused Nos.2 and 3, who are in-laws and in respect of
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned, it requires trial.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61467
CRL.P No. 2083 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010103532021
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.4/2021 invoking the
offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
IPC is quashed in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and
3/accused Nos.2 and 3 and in respect of petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 is concerned, the petition is
rejected.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11