Stalking Woman, Sabotaging Marriage Prospects Despite Her Suicide Attempt Prima Facie Case Of Abetment: Karnataka High Court

Update: 2026-08-19 08:58 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

story

The Karnataka High Court has held that allegations of a man persistently stalking a woman, threatening to circulate photographs of her and repeatedly sabotaging her marriage prospects, despite her refusal and an earlier suicide attempt, prima facie made out a case of abetment to suicide.The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the allegations, if read cumulatively, disclosed the ingredients of abetment requiring adjudication at trial.

It dismissed the petition seeing the quashing of proceedings under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment to suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

“The case at hand cannot be characterised as one where the allegations are bereft of the ingredients of abetment. 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. The allegations travel much farther”, the court said.

“…The complaint and the charge sheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered- her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct. Whether every one of these allegations is true, is not for this Court to decide today…”, the court inferred further about the mens rea aspect of the petitioner-accused which is yet to be ascertained in the trial.

For context, a 22-year-old woman who was pursuing nursing in Mysuru allegedly committed suicide due to the petitioner's alleged acts of coercion and harassment. It was her second attempt to suicide after she was saved earlier that month in a similar attempt. According to the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, the accused-petitioner is a married man.

The allegations include stalking the woman at her workplace, forcing her to accompany him on his motorcycle under the pretext of friendship, and gradually sabotaging her every marriage prospect by stationing himself as an 'obstacle'. The accused is also said to have taken the deceased to Dharmasthala purportedly for visiting temples, and then threatened to circulate those photographs of them together to malign her further. In another occasion, the accused allegedly sabotaged her marriage prospects by claiming to be in a relationship with her.

According to the state, the deceased had repeatedly expressed her disinclination towards the petitioner-accused, despite which the alleged torment of coercion continued.

“…The Court today is not declaring the petitioner guilty; it is only declining to declare the prosecution groundless…. the life of a young woman has come to an abrupt end. The prosecution alleges that, before that end came, there was a sustained trail of pursuit, coercion, intimidation and interference with her freedom to choose the course of her own life. Whether that trail ultimately leads to the petitioner, is a matter for the trial Court to determine upon evidence”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms.

The court specifically noted that the deceased had previously attempted suicide on July 5, 2025, and the family had intervened, but the petitioner allegedly continued his conduct, leading to her death on July 29, 2025.

“…If these allegations ultimately stand proved, the earlier attempt to suicide assumes considerable significance. It was a warning written in unmistakable terms. The allegation is that, despite such warning, the petitioner persisted with the very conduct that had earlier driven the deceased to the brink. The Court cannot, at this stage, put each allegation into a separate compartment and ask whether that act, standing alone, was sufficient to cause suicide. Criminal culpability in a case of this nature may lie in the cumulative force of the conduct allege”, the court noted further after analysing the factual scenario.

While emphasising that the petitioner should stand the test of trial, the court added:

“…The material on record prima facie projects all three facets relevant to the controversy-instigation, goading and proximity. The alleged instigation lies in the continuing coercive course of conduct; the goading is discernible from the persistent pressure and threats; and the proximity is established by the fact that the conduct continued until shortly before the suicide”, the court opined further.

The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020), reiterated that when a prima facie case is made out, the High Court cannot terminate prosecution after appreciating the evidence available at this stage.