Sustained stalking, threats and sabotaging marriage prospects prima facie amount to abetment of suicide; Karnataka HC refuses to quash trial

The petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No.15565 of 2025 for offences under Sections 75, 78 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), arising from Crime No.138 of 2025 registered by Nelamangala Town Police Station.

The deceased, Bhavana, aged 22, allegedly came into contact with the petitioner while studying nursing. The prosecution alleged that, despite her unwillingness, the petitioner repeatedly pursued her, insisted that she marry or enter into a relationship with him, followed her to her workplace, compelled her to accompany him, retained photographs of them together and threatened to circulate them if she refused his demands.

He allegedly interfered with her matrimonial prospects by contacting prospective grooms and informing them that he and Bhavana were in a relationship.

After an earlier suicide attempt by Bhavana on 5 July 2025, the family intervened and the petitioner allegedly assured them that he would desist; however, the alleged conduct continued. Bhavana died by suicide on 29 July 2025, following which the police investigated and filed a charge-sheet.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the allegations in the complaint and charge-sheet prima facie disclosed the offences of sexual harassment and stalking under Sections 75 and 78 of the BNS.

Whether the alleged continuing conduct of the petitioner constituted instigation, intentional aid or other legally sufficient abetment of suicide under Sections 45 and 108 of the BNS.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage.

Section 75 of the BNS criminalises specified forms of sexual harassment, while Section 78 criminalises repeated following or attempted contact despite a clear indication of disinterest.

Section 108 punishes abetment of suicide, and its operation is governed by Section 45, which defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid.

The Court applied the principle that “instigation” involves goading, urging, provoking, inciting or encouraging the commission of an act, and may arise from a continuing course of conduct creating circumstances in which the deceased is left with no reasonable alternative, subject to proof of the requisite mens rea.

It also relied on Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal for the principle that harassment must be accompanied by a positive act proximate to the suicide.

At the quashing stage, the Court cannot assess the veracity or sufficiency of evidence or conduct a mini-trial; it must determine whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie constitute the alleged offences.

The Court also considered Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasises that abetment requires a proximate act and an inferable conscious intention to drive the victim to suicide.

The Court held that the allegations, read cumulatively rather than as isolated incidents, disclosed a continuing course of coercive conduct: persistent pursuit despite the deceased’s disinterest, threats concerning private photographs, stalking, obstruction of matrimonial negotiations and continued interference even after an earlier suicide attempt and intervention by the family and elders.

These allegations prima facie satisfied the statutory contours of sexual harassment and stalking under Sections 75 and 78 of the BNS.

For Section 108, the Court found prima facie material indicating instigation and goading through the petitioner’s persistent coercive conduct, and proximity through the continuation of that conduct shortly before the deceased’s suicide.

Although the petitioner relied on the absence of a direct command to commit suicide and lack of proximity, the Court held that the alleged conduct could not be evaluated piecemeal and that the petitioner’s mens rea and causal connection were matters for evidence at trial.

Applying the restrictive principles governing Section 528 BNSS, the Court concluded that the case did not fall within any category warranting quashing, since the prosecution was neither inherently improbable nor devoid of prima facie material.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed, and the proceedings in C.C. No.15565 of 2025 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, were permitted to continue.