IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103835 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. ERANNA @ G. VEERANNA S/O. YADIYAPPA GANIGER, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. BASAVA NAGAR, KOPPAL-583231, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE AND SRI. HANUMESH M.DESAI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

2. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O. VIRUPANAGOUDA GALI AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSALLI VILLAGE-583231, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.

DM LKBD15 o ea i a Ag c : nr t5 Hi e na c t 0: ta a h E i :2 t l o 2 N a 0 y n 5 k D 2 : s a +5 R H i , g .0 A D 0 i n g 5 K 2 h e h 3. Ud a 0 0 Cr M 7 b wo yA ua BR rdt K of (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; …RESPONDENTS SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL, IN CC NO.3227/2023 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner (accused No.4), who has been charge-

sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased daughter of the de facto complainant, accused Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law, and accused No.4 is her brother-in-law. Initially, the accused persons allegedly treated the deceased well, but later subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and demanded that she bring money from her parental home. Despite fulfilling their demands, the accused allegedly continued to harass her. The prosecution further alleges that the accused collectively told the family of the deceased to take her back to her parental home if they did not provide additional money and if she failed to bear a child. Otherwise, they allegedly asked the deceased to “go and die.” Consequently, on 02.05.2023, the deceased left her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. On 15.05.2023, the petitioner/accused No.4 allegedly refused to participate in a panchayat convened by respondent No.2, and on 16.05.2023, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused No.4 is merely the brother-in-law of the deceased and was residing separately, as evident from the address mentioned in the charge sheet. He contended that there are only general and omnibus allegations against accused No.4, without any specific overt act detailing how and in what manner he subjected the deceased to cruelty or demanded money. He further argued that the alleged utterance of the words “go and die” does not satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:

i) Yuvaraj v. State of Karnataka ii) Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh

4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant argued that the statements of the charge sheet witnesses clearly establish specific overt acts against accused No.4, who allegedly subjected the deceased to both physical and mental cruelty and demanded money. Therefore, the veracity of these allegations should be examined during trial rather than at this stage. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State reiterated the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

7. The marriage of the deceased with