Point of Law: Section 306 of IPC reads as abetment of suicide.

ORDER :

Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.50169 of 2022 pending before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.444 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:-

Accused No.1/petitioner No.1 is the brother of the complainant. Accused No.2 is the wife of the brother of the complainant. In connection with father’s property, accused No.1 has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.25938 of 2018 which is pending adjudication. Petitioner No.1 along with his wife file complaints relating to his father’s property against the complainant, his wife one Smt. Revathi and their son G. Vikram. In this regard on the night of 23-11-2021 the son of the complainant, G.Vikram aged about 33 years committed suicide in the second floor room of the residence by hanging himself leaving a death note alleging that in the month of October, 2021 petitioners 1 and 2 had cornered him near the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Office in Bangalore and threatened him that they will destroy his parents life and the reason for him taking the extreme step is this incident. After the death of the son of the complainant, a complaint comes to be registered alleging that the petitioners are the ones who are responsible for the death of the deceased. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.444 of 2021 for offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC. The petitioners are the accused in the said crime. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet implicating the petitioners as accused and filing of the charge sheet leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.P.S. Khadri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned senior counsel would vehemently contend that none of the ingredients that are necessary for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC to be proved are even present in the case on hand. The alleged death note divulges and alleges that the petitioners in connection with a property dispute chided the deceased and that was in the month of October, 2021 and the alleged date of incident is 23-11-2021. Even if it is taken as correct, there is no proximity for the death to be blamed upon the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are in no way responsible for abetting the commission of suicide of the deceased.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently oppose the petition by contending that the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners. In the light of the charge sheet so filed, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued. The complainant has lost his son. It is a grave agony that has befallen on the family of the complainant. Therefore, the petitioners should not be spared. Whether they have abetted or not to the commission of suicide of the son is a matter of trial. It is for the petitioners to come out clean in the said trial.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent to contend that there is a death note. The death note reveals names of petitioners and if the death note reveals names of accused it is for those petitioners to come out clean in the trial as if there is no evidence, they would be acquitted and if there is evidence, consequences would ensue. She would seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHENDRA K.C. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2022) 2 SCC 129 and would submit that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. The learned senior counsel in reply to the aforesaid submissions o