[Abetment Of Suicide] Perception Of Words Differs From Person To Person, Can't Quash FIR Without Trial: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court while refusing to quash the case of abetment of suicide against an accused, has observed that perception of threatening word differs from person to person and thus, it would not be appropriate in the facts of the case to quash the FIR without a full-fledged trial. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed,"It all depends upon how they pursue the matter. If somebody scolds or blames by using abusive and filthy languages, some people may not take it seriously but some people take it as very seriously, who are sensitive people...Court cannot take a stale sentence and hold there is no abetment of suicide...so many fact has to be considered for the purpose of attracting section 107 of IPC for abetment of suicide...Therefore, without going for trial this Court cannot appreciate or re-appreciate any documents and evidences for the purpose of exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C." Case Details: The petitioner V Srinivasaraju was accused of harassing a couple in connection with allegations of encroaching a government land. It was alleged that the Petitioner threatened the Respondent with dire consequences. He also gave an interview in TV9 channel that in the course of the interview he has called the Respondent as 'Punda Pokri' without any justification. This was seen by his wife and many friends and relatives, who called the couple and enquired about the episode, causing mental anguish to them.The complainant alleged that this made his wife mentally weak and led her into depression, pushing her to commit suicide. Thus, a complaint was under Sections 500 of IPC and also Sections 306, 504, 506, 499, 500 of IPC. The Petitioner claimed that the land in question was legally purchased and the same was considered in a writ petition by the High Court where it was held that there is no question of encroachment. He had very casually stated that some 'Punda Pokri made complaint against him and that his intention was not to insult the complainant. Further, it was only after 15 days that the wife of the complainant had committed suicide. Therefore, there is absolutely no proximity of time and alleged abetment of suicide by the petitioner. Findings The bench on going through the submissions of both parties observed that the Police have filed a charge sheet after due investigation. Therefore, at this stage the Court cannot go into the appreciation of documents on merits without there being a trial. "No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, merely mentioning 'Punda Pokri' is not an offence or it cannot abet the wife of the complainant to commit suicide and it will not defame the complainant in the eye of the public, but it all depends upon how they pursue the matter. If somebody scolds or blames by using abusive and filthy languages, some people may not take it seriously but some people take it as very seriously, who are sensitive people." It said that at this stage, it cannot be said that 'word' will not defame the complainant without going for the trial. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel cannot be acceptable that the word 'Punda-Pokri' will not attract Section 500 of IPC. It held, "Therefore in my considered opinion both the matters require trial and if at all the petitioner is having any defence he is permitted to take all contentions before the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner at this stage." Case Title: V Srinivasaraju v State by Yelahanka Police. Case No: Criminal Petition no 4770/2015 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 170 Date of Order: 19th May 2022 Appearance: Advocate B M Arun for petitioner Advocate Mahesh Shetty for R1 Advocate Ashok B Patil for R2 Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Abetment Of Suicide] Perception Of Words Differs From Person To Person, Can't Quash FIR Without Trial: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags