The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC but criticized the High Court for not providing reasons for quashing under Section 420 IPC, emphasizing the need for a close nexus in abetment cases.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 thereby quashing the FIR and further investigation in Crime Case No. 172 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter “trial court”).

3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

3.1 The husband of the appellant (hereinafter ‘deceased’) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were partners of one M/s. Soundarya Constructions, incorporated in 1994. Respondent No. 4 was working as a manager in M/s. Soundarya Constructions.

3.2 On 14th April 2024, the husband of the Appellant was found dead at his residence. Thereafter, the police drew a panchnama and conducted the inquest as per Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) wherein it was found that the deceased died by way of hanging and he had committed suicide. Thus, the police filed an Unnatural Death Report No. 15 of 2024 (hereinafter ‘UDR’) and the case was closed.

3.3 On 22nd May 2024, after about 39 days of the death of the deceased, the appellant registered a complaint at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 18th May 2024, when she was cleaning the wardrobe of the deceased, she found a death note, written by the deceased in his own handwriting. The note stated that the deceased was cheated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whereby he had incurred losses of Rs.60 crore. It was further stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had forged the signature of the deceased on blank cheques and blank papers and misused them. The note also stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made the deceased invest money in M/s. Soundarya Constructions. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 lied to the deceased and told him that the company was in loss, despite the same being in profit. They made him mortgage his personal properties and the money received from the deceased was used by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for their personal gain. She further stated in the FIR that respondent No. 4 was also directly involved in the above case.

3.4 Consequently, a complaint being Case Crime No. 172 of 2024 was registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 22nd May 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’).

3.5 Upon registration of the complaint and commencement of the investigation, aggrieved, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a petition being Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the FIR and further investigation in Crime Case No. 172 of 2024 pending on the file of the trial court.

3.6 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide impugned final judgment and order, allowed the petition of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and held that for an offence to be constituted under Section 306 of the IPC there must be proximate and positive act to instigate in aiding suicide. The document allegedly forged by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is a 5-year-old document, thus, the death of the deceased has no proximity to the death of the deceased. Next, with regard to Section 420 of the IPC, it was held that if the deceased was lured into something during his lifetime, it was open for the deceased to file a complaint and not upon the appellant i.e. the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of neither Section 306 nor Section 420 of the IPC are made out.

3.7 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was filed by the appellant-complainant in which notice was issued vide order dated 5th November 2024.

4. We have heard Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri D.L. Chidananda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State a