Back
refuses to stalking and abetment of suicide case against Naveen G.
In a significant ruling, the has refused to criminal proceedings against a married man accused of stalking a 22-year-old nursing student and abetting her suicide. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the chargesheet material discloses the ingredients of sexual harassment, stalking, and abetment to suicide under the (BNS).
The Tragic Background
The deceased, Bhavana, first crossed paths with the petitioner, Naveen G., while pursuing nursing in Mysuru. What began as a telephone acquaintance soon turned into relentless pursuit. According to the prosecution, despite Bhavana’s clear disinterest, Naveen insisted on a relationship and marriage, even though he was already married. He allegedly followed her to work, forced her to accompany him to Dharmasthala and other places, and took photographs. When she resisted, he threatened to circulate the photos and ruin her prospects of marriage elsewhere.
The harassment took a grave turn on , when Bhavana attempted suicide by consuming tablets. She survived, and after elders intervened, Naveen promised to stay away. A complaint was even withdrawn on that assurance. But within weeks, the alleged conduct resumed. When a groom named Ranjith came forward, Naveen reportedly telephoned him and claimed an affair, causing the match to collapse. On , unable to bear further distress, Bhavana ended her life.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner, , argued that the essential ingredients of abetment—, , or —were absent. He relied on precedents to contend that the charge sheet did not make out a case under Section 108 BNS.
On the other hand, , representing the complainant, highlighted the cumulative effect of Naveen’s conduct: his persistence despite refusal, his interference with marriage proposals, and the continuation of harassment after a prior suicide attempt. She argued that this created a clear case of and coercion, meriting trial.
The , represented by , supported the complainant’s position.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
The court examined the provisions of Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment of suicide) of the BNS, along with the definition of abetment under Section 45. Emphasizing that the jurisdiction under (equivalent to ) must be used sparingly, the court noted that this was not a case of isolated incidents but a continuing course of .
The judgment extensively cited rulings. In , the Apex Court cautioned that the High Court cannot embark on at the quashing stage. In , it was held that the cannot be tested in proceedings under . The court also referred to , which stated that repeated acts of torture culminating in suicide can constitute abetment.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations, if taken at face value, depict a scenario where the deceased was “progressively cornered”—her refusal ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded, and her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The petitioner is alleged to have pursued the deceased despite her unwillingness; compelled her to accept his advances; threatened to circulate photographs; followed her to her workplace; interfered with her matrimonial prospects; contacted prospective grooms and caused marriage negotiations to collapse.”
“This is not a case of one angry word spoken in the heat of a moment. It is not a case of an isolated quarrel followed, after a considerable hiatus, by suicide. Nor is it a case where the accused is sought to be prosecuted merely because he happened to figure somewhere in the emotional landscape of the deceased.”
“If these allegations ultimately stand proved, the earlier attempt to suicide assumes considerable significance. It was a warning written in unmistakable terms.”
The Verdict
The court found that the material on record projects all three facets relevant to abetment—, , and . The petition was rejected, and the accused was directed to face trial before the . The judgment underscores that the under is not an instrument to stifle a prosecution that discloses a case requiring full adjudication.
