The court established that for an offence to be punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and a direct or active act by the accused that led to the suicide. It also clarified the elements of intentional insult under Section 504 and criminal intimidation under Section 506.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.3/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 & 306 of the IPC.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Pramod Khatavi appearing on behalf of Shri P.P. Hittalamani for the petitioners; learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasuramth appearing for the respondent No.1 -State; & learned counsel Shri G.N. Narasammanavar appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant.

3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the father of one Parashuram N.K., who dies committing suicide. The complainant was an erstwhile employee of Harihar Poly Fibers. After his retirement, the appointment was offered to his son – one Parashuram N.K. The son was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent, intermittently. This leads the employer to issue several notices to the son directing him to report back to duties. On several such instances he does report back to duties and remains unauthorisedly absent. Last of the dates that he attended to the duty at the factory, is in the month of July-2022. After about six months of him going untraceable, commits suicide on 03.01.2023. The 2nd respondent – complainant – father registers a complaint against the Management of Harihar Poly Fibers, on the death of his son by commission of suicide. The registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners, to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned Senior counsel Shri Pramod Khatavi takes this Court to the documents appended to the petition seeking to demonstrate that the petitioner is in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent right from the date of his appointment. A chart is appended to the petition which depicts that the son of the complainant had remained unauthorisedly absent on 15 occasions from 08.08.2014 to 21.12.2022, it goes untraceable for close to three months and then commits suicide. He would submit that there can be no abetment by the petitioner to the commission of suicide of the son of the complainant as there is no proximity to the incident with any harassment even allegable qua petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would seek to refute the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel contending, that a life is lost and the investigation in the least should conducted, against the petitioners, who are responsible for the death of the son of the complainant. He would therefore seek dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant being an erstwhile employee of the Factory is also not in dispute. After leaving of the employment of his son is offered the employment is a matter of record. The allegation against the son the complainant, by the Management of the Factory, is that he has remained unatuhorisedly absent at least on 15 occasions from 08.08.2014 onwards. A chart is appended as to what action is taken on every occasion of unauthorized absence against the son of the complainant. The chart is as follows: