Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Malathy S.B., D/o. Shivanandappa Ballari, W/o. Nitin Kwatihalli & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by SHO, Whitefield Police Station, Whitefield Sub-Division & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11745 of 2023 (GM – RES)
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 34 – Abetment of suicide - Question the FIR - whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an offence; and (ii) whether the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to briefly discuss the law on the abetment of suicide to determine if a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC has been made out against the respondent-accused [Para 15]
Finding of the Court;
Deceased, in the case at hand, is the one belonging to LGBT community. The sensitivity of them being ostracized pervades in the their psyche. Therefore, such people must be treated with all love and affection and not point at the infirmity that they have no control of. If every citizen would treat such citizens with all love and care, as is done to a normal human, precious lives would not be lost. Unfortunately, the precious life of a youth is lost in the case at hand, all for the prima facie allegations of pointing at sexual orientation of the deceased. Therefore, it is for every citizen to bear this in mind while interacting with sensitive people. It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, everyone of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the FIR registered in Crime No.151 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:
The 1st petitioner is employed as Deputy General Manager in Marketing; the 2nd petitioner as Vice-President in Human Resources and the 3rd petitioner as Assistant Manager in Marketing at the Lifestyle International Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short). One Vivek Raj (now deceased) joins the services of the Company and works there between 2014 and 2016. This was the first stint of employment of the deceased at the Company. It is averred that the deceased was employed in multiple organizations in the same field. Later it appears that the deceased comes back to the Company in the year 2022 and he was offered the position of Manager, Visual Merchandising at the Company. He accepts the employment in September 2022. In the light of organizational structure of functioning, the deceased was directed to report to petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 was his teammate and petitioner No.2 was in-charge of Human Resources of the team. Therefore, the petitioners were all involved directly with the deceased. Around the month of February 2023, it appears that the deceased raised concerns to the Human Resource Department regarding functioning of the 1st petitioner. The allegations were manifold as the concern of the deceased was that the 1st petitioner was demanding and asking him to micromanage the work and it was affecting his efficiency. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner has spoken to the deceased in a raised voice in every meeting and was putting him down by cracking unsavory jokes. All the team members are said to have teased the deceased on his sexual orientation. On 17-02-2023 the Human Resources Department held discussions with the 1st petitioner and some suggestions were made to the deceased as well. The deceased was always complaining about the usage of remarks against him on his sexual orientation.
3. On 28-02-2023 the deceased submits his resignation in the online portal. It appears that the resignation comes to be accepted on 16-03-2023 and was notified by e-mail to the deceased. It appears that the resignation submitted by the deceased was withdrawn by him and sought to re-enter the Company. On his re-entry he was not accommodated in the place in which he was earlier working. However, given his work experience, the Human Resources Department initiated internal process towards evaluating the position that the petitioner would get and sought to give him position in a team based out of New Delhi. The deceased participates in that interview and seek that he may be given any position other than what was proposed. Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner conducts another round of interview on 19-05-2023 and at the request of the deceased the discussions about placement moved on to 22-05-2023. It is said that on 22-05-2023 and 23-03-2023 the deceased declines to attend the interview online. Therefore, the employment of the deceased remained in limbo.
4. Certain events happened between the date of resignation of the deceased and his re-entry. Consequent on his resignation, the deceased complains to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 contending that he has been harassed by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and called upon her to reply to the complaint within 10 working days. It appears that the 1st petitioner did reply alleging that the contents of the complaint were all baseless. The Internal Complaints Committee then reprimands the 1st petitioner on consideration of the reply. It appears that the 1st petitioner has sought re-consideration of the findings and the same is pending consideration at the hands of the Committee. After conclusion of proceedin
Essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offense of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires the presence of mens rea and intention on the part of the accused,....
For a charge of abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient without a dire....
For charges under Section 306 IPC, mere harassment is insufficient; there must be direct evidence of incitement to commit suicide.
(1) Abetment of suicide – Ingredients to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC would stand fulfilled if suicide is committed by deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by a....
In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment without a positive act proximate to the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unfounded complaints of caste discrimination and harassment can be considered an abuse of process of law and may be quashed under Section 482 ....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, which was not present in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement, which was absent in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
