Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinod S/O. Ishwar Angrolli vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100275 OF 2025
(482 (Cr.PC) / 528 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. VINOD S/O. ISHWAR ANGROLLI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.1/191, K.H.B. COLONY,
D.N.KOPPA, SAMPIGENAGAR,
DHARWAD-580008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RASHMI P.MANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VISHAL
NINGAPPA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PATTIHAL REPRESENTED BY THE PP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. RAMESH S/O. MYLARAPPA HADAPAD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH R/O. RENUKAMBA NILAYA, SIDDHARTH COLONY,
MALAPRABHA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR WITH
RESPECT TO THE DHARWAD SUB-URBAN PS CRIME
NO.191/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 306 R/W 34 OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD,
IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2; AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner
herein (accused No.2) under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.191 of 2022 of Dharwad
Sub-Urban Police Station, registered for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint and the
same came to be registered in Crime No.191 of 2022 of
Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station against the petitioner and
other accused for the offence punishable under Section 306
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner who has been
arrayed as accused No.2 in the FIR has sought quashing of
the proceedings in Crime No.191 of 2022 of Dharwad Sub-
Urban Police Station
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.1, the State. In spite of service of
notice to respondent No.2, he remains absent and
unrepresented.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that the deceased – Mailarappa, the father of
respondent No.2 had borrowed money from the petitioner and
other accused persons and when they insisted for the
repayment of the said loan amount, he alleged to have
committed suicide. She further contends that there is suicidal
tendency of deceased Mailarappa, which can be seen in the
averments of the complaint where once he alleged to have
attempted to commit suicide on 23.12.2021 by consuming
poison. She further contends that that mere demand for the
repayment of loan does not amount to abatement and on that
point she places reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of MANGALA GOWRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1.
Hence, she contends that continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.
1
2023 SCC Online KAR 64
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
She further submits that this Court has quashed the
proceedings against accused No.3 in Crl. P. No.100087 of
2024. The said accused No.3 is also the person who has lent
the money to the deceased and allegation against him is also
similar to that of the present petitioner. With this, she prayed
to allow this petition.
5. Per Contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that there is a death note left by the
deceased – Mailarappa wherein it is written that the accused
persons are responsible for his death. The accused persons
were insisting the deceased to repay the loan amount. The
deceased fed up with demand, has committed suicide leaving
a death note. He contends that there are no grounds for
quashing the proceedings. With this, the learned High Court
Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused complaint, FIR and other material placed on record.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. On perusal of the averments of the complaint, the
allegation against accused persons is that they lent money to
the deceased – Mailarappa and they were insisting the
deceased – Mailarappa to repay the amount borrowed. The
deceased fed up with the said demand made by accused
persons has once attempted to commit suicide i.e., on
23.12.2021. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on
09.09.2022 by hanging to the ceiling fan in his house. A
death note was also found wherein it was written that
accused persons are responsible for his death.
8. The essential ingredients of offence under Section
306 of IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The
act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using
abusive language will not by itself constitute the abetment of
suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that
the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused
cannot be convicted under Section 306 of IPC.
9. Mere demand and insistence for repayment of loan
amount does not amount to abetment. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of M. ARJUN Vs. STATE2 has observed
thus:
“9. In our considered view, in the case at hand,
M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5,
would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by
the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or
abetment by the appellant- deceased. Having advanced
the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might
have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is
not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the
facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the
ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C are not established and
the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section
306 I.P.C cannot be sustained.”
10. In the said case also accused had advanced money
to the deceased and uttered some words. The Hon’ble Apex
Court held, that by itself is not sufficient to constitute offence
under Section 306 of IPC. In that case also deceased had left
a death note.
2
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 43
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. MOHAN
Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE3 has held as under:
“44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be
a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide.”
12. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner
-accused No.2 to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The
petitioner -accused No.2 intended in getting back the money
advanced by him to the deceased. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from person to person. Each individual has
his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Different people
behave differently in the same situation.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANJU
ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.4
3
(2011) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 626
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025
HC-KAR
has held that, words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of
moment, such as ‘to go and die’, cannot be taken to be
uttered with mens rea.
14. This Court in MANGALA GOWRI‘s case (supra)
has held as under:
“30. The Gujarat High Court in the similar set of
facts has quashed the proceedings for the offence under
Section 306, 384, 385, 387 of Penal Code, 18960 and
Section 40 of the Gujarath Money Lenders Act, in the
case of the Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat,
2020 SCC online Guj 1189 wherein it is observed as
under:
“11. Admittedly, the allegation in FIR is of
deceased having borrowed money from the
present applicant. The deceased failed to repay
the amount with interest. The applicant was
constantly demanding the money and alleged to
have threatened the deceased. Such act of
demanding the repayment of money would not
bring case within the meaning of section 306 of
the Penal Code, 1860. There would not be any
mens rea of the applicant as he would not
benefited from the act of suicide of the deceased
and thus, prima facie the allegation in the FIR,
taken at its face value do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
31. On the consideration of the evidence on
record, there is no evidence to show that the
appellant/accused had intention to drive out the
deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any
angle the act of the appellant/accused harassing the
deceased for repayment of money borrowed and4
(2002) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 371
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4338
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2025HC-KAR
threatening him to take his life does not amounts to
abetment. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has
committed an error in holding that the act of the
appellant/accused amount to abetment to the deceased
Raju to commit suicide.”
15. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner –
accused No.2 merely insisting and demanding the deceased
to repay the loan amount does not amount to abetment to
commit suicide. In view of the same, continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioner – accused No. 2 is an abuse
of process of law. In the result, the following
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioner –
accused No.2 in Crime No.191 of 2022 of
Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station
registered for offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC
are quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
