R. SHASHIREKHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217 : 2025 INSC 402

                            R. Shashirekha
                                  v.
                    State of Karnataka and Others
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1539 of 2025)
                                27 March 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed
       the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further
       investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 –
       ss.306, 420 – Quashing of complaint – Abetment of suicide –
       Cheating – Victim, respondent nos.2 and 3 partners in a firm,
       and respondent no.4 was the manager – Victim committed
       suicide by hanging – After about 39 days, the appellant-wife
       of the deceased registered a complaint that she found a death
       note written by the deceased which stated that deceased was
       cheated by respondent nos.2 and 3, and that the respondent
       no.4 was directly involved in the case – Case of the appellant
       that a week before the death of her husband, her husband had
       received continuous calls from respondent nos.2 and 3, and
       whenever he received such calls, he used to be completely
       upset and had decided to commit suicide – Respondents filed
       a petition u/s.482 before the High Court to quash the FIR –
       High court allowed the petition holding that ingredients of
       ss.306 and 420 IPC not made out – Correctness:
       Held: Nothing could prevent the appellant from reporting the matter
       to the police immediately after the deceased committed suicide – It
       is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations
       were an afterthought – Single Judge of the High Court held there
       is not a titter of a document that would pin respondents down for
       any act of abetment for suicide of the husband of the appellant –
       Even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that



* Author
1218                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit
    suicide – No reasonable nexus between the period to which the
    allegations pertain and the date of death – High Court did not error in
    quashing the proceedings u/s.306 – However, the High Court while
    quashing the proceedings u/s.420 acted in a casual and cursory
    manner – Least that was expected of the High Court was to give
    reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency
    was not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s.420 – In absence
    of any reason, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings
    u/s.420 – Impugned judgment, insofar it quashes proceedings
    u/s.306 is upheld and insofar it quashes proceedings u/s.420, is
    quashed and set aside. [Paras 12-15, 18, 19, 21]

                              Case Law Cited
    Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another,
    2024 INSC 1020 : [2024] 12 SCR 1160 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
    3835 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
    Suicide; Abetment of suicide; Cheating; Death by hanging; Forged
    signatures on blank cheques; Blackmail; Misuse of money;
    Quashing of FIR; Instigating deceased to commit suicide; Mini-trial.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1539 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2024 of the High Court
    of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No. 5821 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv., Ms. Adviteeya, Nishant,
    Madhvendra Singh.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, C B Gururaj,
    Sai Shakti, Animesh Dubey, M/s. Gururaj & Nayak.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1219

            R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka And Others


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     B.R. Gavai, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
     3rd September 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
     Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024
     whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent
     Nos. 2 to 4 thereby quashing the FIR and further investigation in
     Crime Case No.172 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXII Additional
     Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter, “trial court”).
3.   Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
     3.1 The husband of the appellant (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) and
         respondent Nos.2 and 3 were partners of one M/s. Soundarya
         Constructions, incorporated in 1994. Respondent No.4 was
         working as a manager in M/s. Soundarya Constructions.
     3.2 On 14th April 2024, the husband of the Appellant was found dead
         at his residence. Thereafter, the police drew a panchnama and
         conducted the inquest as per Section 174 of Code of Criminal
         Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C.’) wherein it was found that
         the deceased died by way of hanging and he had committed
         suicide. Thus, the police filed an Unnatural Death Report No.15
         of 2024 (hereinafter, ‘UDR’) and the case was closed.
     3.3 On 22nd May 2024, after about 39 days of the death of the
         deceased, the appellant registered a complaint at the concerned
         Police Station alleging that on 18th May 2024, when she was
         cleaning the wardrobe of the deceased, she found a death note,
         written by the deceased in his own handwriting. The note stated
         that the deceased was cheated by respondent Nos.2 and 3
         whereby he had incurred losses of Rs.60 crore. It was further
         stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had forged the signature of
         the deceased on blank cheques and blank papers and misused
         them. The note also stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 made
         the deceased invest money in M/s. Soundarya Constructions.
         Respondent Nos.2 and 3 lied to the deceased and told him that
1220                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          the company was in loss, despite the same being in profit. They
          made him mortgage his personal properties and the money
          received from the deceased was used by respondent Nos.2
          and 3 for their personal gain. She further stated in the FIR that
          respondent No.4 was also directly involved in the above case.
     3.4 Consequently, a complaint being Case Crime No. 172 of 2024
         was registered against respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 22nd May 2024
         for offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 506 read
         with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter,
         ‘IPC’).
     3.5 Upon registration of the complaint and commencement of the
         investigation, aggrieved, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a petition
         being Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024 under Section 482 of
         the Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the FIR and further
         investigation in Crime Case No.172 of 2024 pending on the
         file of the trial court.
     3.6 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide impugned
         final judgment and order, allowed the petition of respondent
         Nos.2 to 4 and held that for an offence to be constituted under
         Section 306 of the IPC there must be proximate and positive
         act to instigate in aiding suicide. The document allegedly forged
         by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is a 5-year-old document, thus, the
         death of the deceased has no proximity to the death of the
         deceased. Next, with regard to Section 420 of the IPC, it was
         held that if the deceased was lured into something during his
         lifetime, it was open for the deceased to file a complaint and
         not upon the appellant i.e., the wife of the deceased. Therefore,
         the ingredients of neither Section 306 nor Section 420 of the
         IPC are made out.
     3.7 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was filed by
         the appellant-complainant in which notice was issued vide order
         dated 5th November 2024.
4.   We have heard Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale, learned Senior Counsel
     appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri D.L. Chidananda, learned
     counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State and Shri Dama
     Sheshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
     respondent Nos.2-4/accused persons.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1221

            R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka And Others


5.   Shri Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
     appellant submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
     has grossly erred in allowing the petition filed by respondent Nos.2
     to 4 herein. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has almost
     conducted a mini-trial which is not permissible for the High Court
     while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He
     submits that since the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under
     Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the judgment and order passed by the High
     Court needs to be quashed and set aside.
6.   Shri Mahale submits that, in any case, the learned Single Judge of
     the High Cout has grossly erred in quashing the proceedings under
     Section 306 of IPC. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of
     the High Court has not given any reason as to why the allegations
     taken at its face value in the FIR, the case under Section 306 of
     IPC could not be made out.
7.   Shri Mahale submits that the learned Single Judge of the High
     Court has grossly erred insofar as quashing of the proceedings
     under Section 420 of IPC is concerned. It is submitted that during
     the investigation, the investigating agency has seized sufficient
     material to indicate that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had committed an
     act of cheating, breach of trust and forgery.
8.   Shri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
     Nos.2 to 4, on the contrary, submits that the learned Single Judge
     has, upon consideration of the entire material in a well-reasoned
     order, found that the allegations, taken at its face value, do not
     constitute an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC.
     He submits that no case is made out for interference and pressed
     for dismissal of the appeal.
9.   Shri Chidananda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
     No.1-State submits that after the matter was investigated, the
     investigating agency found sufficient material to proceed for the
     offence punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC. He, therefore,
     supports the appeal.
10. Insofar as the averment in the FIR with regard to the offence
    punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, it is averred by
    the appellant-complainant that after her husband had died on 14th April
    2024 by committing suicide, while she was checking the belongings
1222                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


     of her deceased husband on 18th May 2024, she found a death
     note written by her husband in his own handwriting. She narrated
     that after she read the said death note, she came to know that her
     husband has incurred a loss of Rs.60 crore and was cheated by the
     partners of M/s. Soundarya Constructions i.e. respondent Nos.2 and
     3 herein. She has stated in the FIR that respondent Nos. 2 and 3
     have given false promises and forged her husband’s signature on
     blank cheques and blank papers and misused the same. She further
     stated that her husband was blackmailed by respondent Nos.2 and
     3. She further states that her husband used to always be worried
     about the fraudulent activities of respondent Nos.2 and 3. She further
     states that a week before her husband’s death, her husband had
     been receiving continuous calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
     whenever such call was received, he used to be completely upset
     and decided to die by committing suicide and wrote the death note.
     It is also averred in the FIR that respondent No.4 was also directly
     involved in the above case.
11. From the allegations taken in the FIR at its face value, it can be
    seen that the case of the appellant-complainant is that even much
    before her husband died, he used to be blackmailed by respondent
    Nos. 2 and 3. According to her, a week before her husband’s death,
    her husband had been receiving continuous calls from the above
    persons and whenever he received such calls, he was completely
    upset and had decided to commit suicide.
12. If the version of the appellant-complainant is to be accepted, the
    question remains as to why she kept silent from 14th April 2024 till
    22nd May 2024. If her husband was upset a week before his death,
    whenever he received calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and if
    he was blackmailed by the said respondents, then nothing could
    prevent the appellant-complainant from reporting this matter to the
    police immediately after the deceased committed suicide. Thus, it
    is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations
    were an afterthought.
13. Assuming that the allegations are true, even otherwise, the case under
    Section 306 of IPC would not be made out. Recently, this Court in a
    case of Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another1


1   2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 : 2024 INSC 1020
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           1223

            R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka And Others


     in which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member has considered all the
     earlier judgments with regard to Section 306 of IPC. After referring
     to the earlier judgments, this Court has observed thus:
           “31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra),
           this Court, under similar circumstances, had quashed the
           chargesheet under Section 306 of the IPC against the
           accused-appellant. A factor that had weighed with the
           Court in the said case was that there was a time gap of
           48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission
           of suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim
           of his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had
           ensued between him and the appellant, 48 hours prior to
           the commission of his suicide.
           32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at
           face value, the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred
           on 17th February 2015, while the deceased had committed
           suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear gap of over a
           month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the
           commission of suicide. We therefore find that the courts
           below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that
           the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of
           the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
           …………….
           34. …….The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at
           hand is that there must be a close proximity between the
           positive act of instigation by the accused person and the
           commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity
           should be such as to create a clear nexus between the
           act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in
           the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the
           deceased had taken the words of the appellants seriously,
           a time gap between the two incidents would have given
           enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect
           on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month would be
           sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link
           between the two acts.”
14. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court itself would reveal that
    the Government Pleader appearing in the case has submitted before
1224                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     the High Court that the entire investigation was complete and what
     was remaining was the filing of a final report before the concerned
     court. The learned Single Judge has observed that he has perused
     the entire investigation papers and perusal of the same revealed that
     there is not a titter of a document that would pin respondent Nos.2
     to 4 down for any act of abetment for suicide of the husband of the
     appellant-complainant.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the
    allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations
    would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any
    case, there is no reasonable nexus between the period to which the
    allegations pertain and the date of death. In that view of the matter,
    we do not find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
    erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC.
16. Having held that no error was committed by the High Court in quashing
    the FIR with respect to the offence punishable under Section 306 of
    the IPC, we will now consider whether the High Court was justified
    in quashing offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
17. Insofar as Section 420 of IPC is concerned, the only observation
    the learned Single Judge of the High Court has made was if the
    complainant’s husband had been lured into something during his
    lifetime, it was open for him to file a complaint. The learned Single
    Judge of the High Court further observed that it was not open for
    the appellant-complainant to file a complaint after the death of her
    husband. Having observed this, the learned Single Judge of the High
    Court observed that no semblance of the ingredients of either Section
    306 of IPC or Section 420 of IPC were found in the case at hand.
18. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our view, while
    quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, has acted in a
    casual and cursory manner. If the learned Single Judge of the High
    Court was of the view that even investigation papers as collected
    by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable
    under Section 420 of IPC, then the least that was expected of the
    learned Single Judge of the High Court was to give reasons as to
    why the material collected by the investigating agency which has
    been placed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court was
    not sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420
    of IPC.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        1225

               R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka And Others


19. In absence of any reason given, we are of the considered view that
    the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing
    the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC.
20. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow the appeal.
21. In the result, we pass the following order:
     (i)     The appeal is partly allowed;
     (ii)    The impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024
             passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal
             Appeal No. 5821 of 2024 insofar as it quashes the proceedings
             under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, is upheld;
     (iii) The impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024
           passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal
           Appeal No. 5821 of 2024 insofar as it quashes the proceedings
           under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, is quashed and set
           aside; and
     (iv) The learned trial court would proceed further in accordance with
          law insofar as the case under Section 420 of IPC is concerned.
22. However, we clarify that, in the event respondent Nos.2 to 4 are of
    the view that even the material collected by the investigating agency
    is not sufficient to proceed further for the offence punishable under
    Section 420 of IPC, they will be at liberty to file an application for
    discharge, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance
    with law without being influenced by the observations made by the
    learned Single Judge of the High Court and this Court.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain