'Astonishing Recklessness': Karnataka High Court Orders Probe Against Cop For Charging Husband With Abetment To Suicide Though Wife Was Alive
Criticising the 'reckless' utilisation of police powers, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a husband who was charged with abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 -despite the alleged victim (his wife) being alive. The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the husband, languishing in jail for...
Criticising the 'reckless' utilisation of police powers, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a husband who was charged with abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 -despite the alleged victim (his wife) being alive.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the husband, languishing in jail for the past six months since October 2025, should be released immediately. The court has also directed for a departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer for the 'reckless invocation' of penal provisions.
“Section 108 is neither ambiguous nor elastic. It stands anchored upon the un-denial prerequisite that, “if any person commits suicide” only then culpability for abetment would arise. In an astonishing display of recklessness or prosecutorial haste, the crime is registered for abetment to suicide and a charge sheet is also filed for the offence of abetment of suicide, an offence whose very foundation is actual commission of suicide…”, the court made harsh remarks about the investigating officer's conduct in the case.
The court, surprised by the fact that the petitioner's wife was alive and present before the court through her counsel, noted that the 'the very substratum of accusation' was 'wholly illusory'.
“What shocks the judicial conscience is not merely the erroneous invocation of the provision, but the grave consequence that followed in its wake. The petitioner husband is languished behind the prison walls for six long months, deprived of his liberty under the shadow of a charge sheet that could not even remotely sustain legal scrutiny…The incarceration of the petitioner, in such circumstances, paints a deeply troubling portrait of investigative imprudence and indifference to personal liberty”, the court further went on to note in the order despite the settlement reached between the parties, including the husband and the wife.
Context
In October 2025, the husband who had a strained marital relationship with the complainant, entered the house in an inebriated state and allegedly attempted to assault the latter. Thereafter, she attempts to commit suicide. However, the complainant wife had survived her attempt to jump from the second floor of their house and had only suffered fractures upon her fall from the building.
The wife, after her release from the hospital, filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police, explaining her attempt to commit suicide. However, the police registered an FIR for abetment to suicide as well and the petitioner remained in custody due to the invocation of the said charge. The High Court noticed the blatant irregularity in the registration of offences only when the matter reached the High Court for closure of pending criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties.
The FIR and Chargesheet against the husband falsely arraigned him for offences under Sections 108 [abetment of suicide], 62[attempt to commit serious crimes], 85[cruelty to married woman] and 352[Intentional Insult to Provoke Breach of Peace] of the BNS.
Further Remarks By The Court
The Court noted the terms of the settlement between the husband and wife that they had amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute with the intervention of elders and relatives, and the wife had voluntarily agreed to compounding of offences, hence restoring the matrimonial harmony. However, even in light of such a settlement, the court opined that it cannot be a 'silent spectator to such cavalier exercise of police power'.
In a scathing indictment about the investigation conducted, the high court further observed that the criminal justice system cannot be reduced to “a frolicsome act of the investigating officer, where accusations are drafted upon whim and fancy.”
The single judge bench said that the 'non-application of mind' by the investigating officer has made the petitioner-citizen remain in jail for over six months, even in the absence of occurrence of the alleged offence [abetment to suicide].
The court, along with directing the immediate release of the petitioner, has also made it clear that the departmental enquiry against the investigating officer should not be 'a ritualistic exercise', but a detailed examination about the 'disturbing casualness' with which even a chargesheet has been filed before the trial court for the offence under Section 108.
“…The Competent Authority is accordingly directed to initiate a departmental enquiry against the officer-in-charge of the police station/Investigating Officer, who has displayed such patent irresponsibility in laying a charge sheet for offence under Section 108 of the BNS, despite the admitted absence of suicide…”, the court accordingly added that the enquiry report should be placed before the court within 3 months.
Accordingly, the husband's criminal petition was allowed by quashing the pending proceedings before a CJM court in Bengaluru. The investigating officer would face court monitored departmental enquiry for charging the former with Section 108 when there was no suicide at all, removing the necessary ingredient of the offence in hand.
Adv. Ranganath Reddy R appeared for the petitioner-husband.
Case Title: Mr. Nixon v. State by Banaswadi Police Station & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5622 of 2026