Repeated Harassment, Marriage Sabotage May Amount to Abetment of Suicide : Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of pursuing a nursing student despite her repeated refusals, threatening to circulate her photographs, and intervening to sabotage her marriage negotiations on two occasions, in the period before she died by suicide.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C. No.15565 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 75, 78 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, aged 22 and pursuing nursing studies in Mysuru, came into telephonic contact with the petitioner, who is stated to be married with two children. The acquaintance, the complaint alleges, was pressed by the petitioner into a relationship of his choosing. He is alleged to have insisted that she meet him at places of his choice, accompanied her to Dharmasthala and other locations, and obtained photographs of them together during this period.

The prosecution's case is that when the deceased made her disinclination clear, the petitioner did not desist. He is alleged to have followed her to her workplace, compelled her to accompany him on his motorcycle, insisted on marriage, and threatened to circulate the photographs in his possession if she did not comply. On 05.07.2025, the deceased is alleged to have consumed tablets in an attempt to end her life; she survived and was treated at hospital. Her family thereafter approached the police, and elders reportedly counselled the petitioner to keep away from her, following which the complaint was withdrawn.

The petitioner allegedly resumed the same conduct, and is said to have intervened whenever marriage talks commenced for the deceased, telling prospective grooms that he and she were in a relationship. One such proposal, with a person named Ranjith, is alleged to have collapsed after the petitioner telephoned him with this claim. On 29.07.2025, the deceased was found hanging in her room, giving rise to Crime No.138 of 2025 and, subsequently, the charge sheet in C.C. No.15565 of 2025.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the ingredients of abetment to suicide were absent, submitting that there was no goading, instigation or proximity between his client's conduct and the date of the deceased's death, and that the charge sheet had been filed only to placate the family. Counsel for the complainant-mother and the State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner's conduct in obstructing marriage talks on two occasions, coupled with sustained harassment, satisfied all ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS and that he must face a full-blown trial.

The Court held that the allegations, accepted as they stand, prima facie brought the conduct within Sections 75 and 78 of the BNS, given the alleged repeated pursuit despite disinterest, coercive demands and the use of photographs as a threat. On the charge of abetment of suicide, the Court explained that abetment, as defined under Section 45 of the BNS, requires instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, and that the settled test is the presence of instigation, goading and proximity leaving the victim no option but to end her life. Surveying Supreme Court precedent, the Bench noted that a High Court exercising quashment jurisdiction cannot appreciate evidence where a prima facie case is disclosed, that such proceedings cannot be turned into a trial before the trial, and that repeated acts of harassment may cumulatively constitute abetment even absent a single decisive incident.

Applying these principles, the Court found the case to be one of a continuing course of conduct rather than an isolated quarrel, occurring after an earlier suicide attempt of which the petitioner was aware. The Bench observed:

“criminal culpability in a case of this nature may lie in the cumulative force of the conduct alleged.”

The Court clarified that it was not returning a finding of guilt but only declining to hold the prosecution groundless, and that whether the petitioner possessed the requisite mens rea, and whether an unbroken causal nexus existed between his alleged conduct and the suicide, were matters for trial on evidence. This, the Court noted, was not a case where the petitioner was being prosecuted merely because he figured in the emotional landscape of the deceased; the allegations, if true, depicted her being progressively cornered, with her refusal ignored, her privacy threatened and her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged.

Holding that the material on record prima facie disclosed instigation, goading and proximity, the Court declined to invoke its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, observing that the width of that power is not an invitation to width of interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the petitioner was left to face trial.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri Lakshmikanth K., Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 (State): Smt. Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader.

For Respondent No.2: Smt. Raksha Keerthana, Advocate.

Case Title: Naveen G. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 4666 of 2026