Ola CEO Disputes Suicide Note in Abetment Case, High Court Orders Fair Probe

Bengaluru, Karnataka – The Karnataka High Court is currently seized of a high-stakes criminal petition filed by Ola Electric CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and other company executives seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) that accuses them of abetment to suicide. In a hearing marked by sharp exchanges, the petitioners frontally challenged the authenticity of the suicide note left by the deceased employee, while the court underscored the necessity of a fair and impartial police investigation.

The case, Subrat Kumar Dash & Others v. State of Karnataka & ANR , stems from the tragic death of K Aravind, an Ola employee who allegedly died by suicide. An FIR was registered on October 6 under Sections 108 (Abetment of Suicide) and 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), based on a complaint by the deceased's brother, Ashwin Kannan. The complaint alleges that workplace harassment, coupled with the denial of salary and other dues, drove Aravind to take his own life, a claim purportedly detailed in a suicide note.

Appearing before Justice Mohammad Nawaz, the petitioners have argued for the quashing of the FIR and sought interim protection from coercive police action, contending that the allegations are unfounded and part of a campaign to damage the company's reputation.

The Suicide Note: "Not Gospel Truth"

The central and most contentious issue debated during the hearing on October 29 was the evidentiary value and authenticity of the suicide note. Senior Advocate M S Shyamsundar, representing Bhavish Aggarwal and the other petitioners, launched a direct assault on the note's credibility.

"Lordships have repeatedly held that death notes are not gospel truths," Shyamsundar submitted to the court. He went further, casting serious doubt on the note's authorship and insinuating it may have been fabricated. "I have a strong doubt that it is Mr Prasanna's client (Complainant Ashwin Kannan brother of deceased), who is the narrator of this death note.”

This provocative submission drew a swift and vehement response from Advocate P Prasanna Kumar, counsel for the complainant. "I am extremely sorry...let him not make such kind of submissions," Kumar retorted. "It shows that the company (OLA) is worse than East India Company, they cannot make such kind of allegations. How can you (petitioners) make an allegation against the brother? Let the police investigate who has written it."

This exchange highlights the core legal battleground: the defense aims to discredit the primary piece of evidence connecting the alleged harassment to the suicide, while the prosecution insists this is a matter for forensic investigation, not courtroom speculation at this preliminary stage.

Corporate Reputation vs. Criminal Investigation

The proceedings also brought to the forefront the significant collateral impact of such allegations on a publicly listed company. Shyamsundar argued that the complainant was actively disparaging the company in the media, leading to tangible financial consequences.

"I am a public listed company and my shares are dropping," he stated, pointing to interviews and photographs allegedly circulated by the complainant. "This is what he (complainant) is doing by giving the pictures, this is absolutely disparaging... His hand have to be tied."

The Senior Advocate also lamented the broader narrative forming around the company, noting, "More than 7,000 pages are there on the web, everyone is saying there is a toxic work culture in Ola. My employees are leaving because of this."

However, Advocate Kumar countered that these arguments were a diversionary tactic, irrelevant to the criminal matter at hand. "Is he arguing an injunction suit? How can he attribute this to me if someone else does it?" Kumar questioned, urging the court to remain focused on the cause of death rather than the complainant's conduct or the company's stock price.

Court's Stance: Fair Investigation is Paramount

Amidst the heated arguments, the bench, led by Justice Mohammad Nawaz, maintained a clear focus on the procedural sanctity of the investigation. The court orally directed the police to proceed without bias while also protecting the petitioners from undue harassment.

“Investigation is pending, this court has said that respondent (police) shall not harass the petitioners, under the pretext of investigation," the court observed. "They have to conduct a fair investigation and file an appropriate final report in the four corners of law/provisions available to them. Police are doing an investigation and they have to do a fair investigation they cannot lean on any side…”

The court extended its earlier interim order directing the police not to take coercive action, simultaneously reminding the petitioners of their duty. Following a submission by the State's counsel that the petitioners were sending letters instead of appearing in person, the court explicitly stated, "Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation of the case."

The court also dismissed a procedural argument from the defense that a new FIR for abetment should not have been registered since an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) was already on file. "UDR will be closed now and they (police) have to act on this complaint now," the court clarified, noting that a subsequent complaint disclosing a cognizable offense justifies a new FIR.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 17, with the interim protection for the petitioners continuing until then. The outcome of this petition will be closely watched, as it tests the boundaries of corporate accountability in cases of employee suicide and the High Court's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperative of a thorough criminal investigation.