IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103654 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

ASHWINI D/O. CHINAMANI SANNAKKINAVAR, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUDACHI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-11.

Digitally signed by 2. B.H. BISALNAIK, SAMREEN AYUB AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASI, DESHNUR Location: R/O. KUDACHI POLICE STATION HIGH TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.

COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE CC NO.643/2016 (KUDACHI P.S. CRIME NO.170/2015) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. RAIBAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 309 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ETC.,.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for setting aside the proceedings pending in CC No.643/2016 before the I-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in Crime No.170/2015 of respondent No.1/Police for the offence punishable under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, For short ‘IPC’

Brief facts of the case;

2. The case of the prosecution is that on

23.07.2015, the complainant was on duty at about 2:30 PM, he is stated to have received an information that, the petitioner had consumed poison and got admitted to the Hospital. The complainant visited the Hospital and enquired about the incident. However, the petitioner was not in a position to give any information. Thereafter, it is stated that, the petitioner was taken to Belagavi Hospital for further treatment.

3. It is further stated that the complainant enquired the parents of the petitioner about the incident. They narrated the incident that the petitioner married Mahadev Maruti Ganikar, there was a difference of opinion between the couple. A mediation was initiated between the couple at the intervention of the elders and family members. However, the dispute was not resolved peacefully. Thereafter, the petitioner went to her parent’s house and started residing with her parents. Once again, mediation was conducted. In the said mediation, it was decided that the petitioner should go and join the husband. However, as the petitioner was not interested to join the matrimonial home, she consumed poison.

4. Based on the said information, a complaint came to be registered by the respondent No.1/Police, after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet.

5. Heard Sri.Ram P.Gorpade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the case is registered against the petitioner under Section 309 of IPC, it has to be read in conjunction with Section 115(1) of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

7. It is further contended that, in view of the said provision, the petitioner is not required to face the trial as she has got immunity to face the trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner has to be quashed, is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State vehemently submitted that Section 309 of IPC is an independent offence. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has not provided such immunity to the petitioner. Therefore, she has to face trail and there are prima facie material to proceed against her.

Hence, the petition has to be dismissed is his contention.

9. Having heard the learned