27 March 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

In R. Shashirekha v/s State of Karnataka & Others., the Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict in an appeal challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against the deceased's business partners and manager. While the apex court upheld the High Court's decision to quash charges of abetment to suicide (Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC), it set aside the quashing of charges related to cheating (Section 420 of the IPC), directing the trial court to proceed with the investigation on those grounds.

The case originated from the death of a businessman who was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 was employed as a manager in the firm. Following the businessman's death by hanging in April 2024, the police initially registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) and closed the case, concluding it to be a suicide.

However, approximately 39 days later, the deceased's wife (the appellant) filed a complaint alleging that she had discovered a death note written by her husband. The note purportedly stated that he had incurred losses of Rs. 60 crore due to being cheated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The note further alleged forgery of his signatures on blank cheques and papers, misuse of funds invested by him in the company, and misrepresentation about the company's financial status, leading him to mortgage personal properties for their personal gain. Respondent No. 4 was also implicated in these allegations.

Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered against the respondents under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the  IPC. 

Aggrieved, the accused partners and manager approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court allowed their petition, stating that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be a proximate and positive act instigating or aiding suicide. The High Court noted that the alleged forgery was related to a five-year-old document, lacking proximity to the deceased's recent death. Regarding Section 420 IPC, the High Court opined that if the deceased was indeed cheated during his lifetime, it was for him to file a complaint, not his wife after his demise.

The deceased's wife then appealed to the Supreme Court. Senior Counsel Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale, appearing for the appellant, argued that the High Court had erred in conducting a "mini-trial" and exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He contended that the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, did disclose offences under both Sections 306 and 420 IPC.

Senior Counsel Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, representing the accused respondents, countered that the High Court had rightly concluded that the allegations did not constitute offences under the said sections. The State's counsel supported the appeal, stating that the investigation had revealed sufficient material to proceed under Sections 306 and 420 IPC.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Abetment to Suicide (Section 306 IPC):

The Supreme Court, after considering the allegations in the FIR, noted the appellant's claim that her husband was being blackmailed and was upset due to calls from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 a week before his death, leading him to contemplate suicide and write the death note.

However, the apex court questioned the appellant's silence for 39 days after her husband's death if these events had indeed transpired. It deemed these allegations to be an afterthought.

Furthermore, relying on its recent judgment in Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be a close proximity and a clear nexus between the positive act of instigation by the accused and the commission of suicide by the victim. The court highlighted the time gap between the alleged fraudulent activities and the date of death, finding no reasonable proximity to establish abetment.

The Supreme Court also took note of the High Court's observation that a perusal of the investigation papers revealed no concrete evidence linking the respondents to any act of abetment. Consequently, the apex court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings under Section 306 IPC.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Cheating (Section 420 IPC):

Regarding the quashing of proceedings under Section 420 IPC, the Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of the High Court's "casual and cursory manner" in dealing with this charge. The apex court pointed out that the High Court had merely stated that the deceased should have filed a complaint himself if he was cheated and that his wife could not do so after his death.

The Supreme Court held that if the High Court, after perusing the investigation papers, believed that the collected material did not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, it was obligated to provide reasons for this conclusion. The absence of any such reasoning led the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court's order quashing the proceedings under Section 420 IPC.

Final Verdict and Way Forward:

In its final order, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. The quashing of proceedings under Section 306 IPC by the High Court was upheld, while the quashing of proceedings under Section 420 IPC was set aside.

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with the law concerning the case under Section 420 IPC. However, it clarified that if the accused respondents believe that the material collected during the investigation is insufficient to proceed even under Section 420 IPC, they are at liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court. The trial court is directed to consider such an application independently, without being influenced by the observations of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

This judgment underscores the importance of a direct and proximate link in establishing abetment to suicide while also emphasizing the need for a thorough and reasoned analysis when quashing charges of economic offenses like cheating, even at the initial stages of investigation.

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860