Karnataka HC Keeps Suicide-Abetment Case Against Wife Over Alleged Next-Day Marriage Refusal, Quashes It Against Her Parents

The complainant alleged that the deceased married petitioner No. 1 on 16 August 2020 and that, the following day, she told him she had not wanted to marry him, having married only to satisfy her parents.

She allegedly threatened to file a dowry case if he disclosed this, and the complainant attributed the deceased’s suicide to her conduct.

Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, her parents, were alleged to have failed to act after being informed of the matter.

Following investigation, police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, relying, among other material, on witness statements that the deceased had spoken of petitioner No. 1’s conduct before his death.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 306 IPC concerns abetment of suicide, and Section 107 IPC defines abetment; the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s discussion of these provisions in M. Mohan v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011, particularly paragraphs 37 and 40.

The Court considered whether the alleged conduct disclosed abetment and whether there was proximity between that conduct and the death; it also exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where the allegations did not warrant continuation.

As to petitioner No. 1, the complaint alleged that she told the deceased immediately after the marriage that she had not wanted to marry him and threatened him against disclosing this.

The prosecution also relied on witness statements that the deceased had described her conduct before committing suicide.

The Court held that these allegations and statements required assessment at trial, including whether her conduct was sufficiently connected to the death, and declined to quash the case against her.

As to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, the only allegation was that they failed to respond appropriately when informed of their daughter’s conduct.

The Court found no proximity to the death and treated the allegation against them as omnibus and insufficient to sustain a Section 306 charge.

Proceedings in C.C. No. 4/2021 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC were quashed against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3; the petition was rejected as to petitioner No. 1, against whom the proceedings were left to continue.