Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on March 27, 2025, upheld the quashing of criminal proceedings for abetment to suicide lodged against the business partners and manager of M/s Soundarya Constructions concerning the unnatural death of Kannada film producer and businessman Soundarya Jagadeesh on April 14, 2024.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, however, allowed the proceedings to continue against the accused regarding the offence of cheating while acting on a plea by R Shashirekha, the wife of the deceased.

Jagadeesh was found to have died by hanging, and the police closed the matter as an unnatural death after conducting proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, on May 22, 2024, about 39 days after the death, the appellant-wife registered a complaint at the concerned police station, alleging that on May 18, 2024, while cleaning the wardrobe of the deceased, she found a death note written by Jagadeesh in his own handwriting.

The note stated that the deceased had been cheated by the accused, resulting in a loss of Rs 60 crore. It was alleged that the accused had forged the deceased's signature on blank cheques and papers and misused them. The accused allegedly told him that the company was at a loss despite being profitable. They made him mortgage his personal properties, and the money received from the deceased was used by them for personal gain.

The high court, however, quashed the criminal case, holding that the document allegedly forged by the accused was five years old and had no proximity to the deceased's death. Regarding Section 420 of the IPC, it was held that if the deceased had been lured into something during his lifetime, it was open for him to file a complaint, not the appellant, i.e., his wife.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the single judge had conducted an almost mini-trial, which is not permissible for the high court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The counsel for the accused argued that no case was made out for interference, as the high court, in a well-reasoned order, found that the allegations, taken at face value, did not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC.

The state counsel supported the appeal, stating that the investigating agency had found sufficient material to proceed with the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC.

Examining the matter, the bench noted that, based on the allegations in the FIR taken at face value, the appellant-complainant's case was that even long before her husband's death, he had been blackmailed by the accused. According to her, a week before his death, he had been receiving continuous calls from the accused, and whenever he received such calls, he was completely upset and had decided to commit suicide.

"If the version of the appellant-complainant is to be accepted, the question remains as to why she kept silent from April 14, 2024 till May 22, 2024. If her husband was upset a week before his death, whenever he received calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 (accused) and if he was blackmailed by the said respondents, then nothing could prevent the appellant-complainant from reporting this matter to the police immediately after the deceased committed suicide," the bench said.

Thus, it was apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought, the bench held.

"Assuming that the allegations are true, even otherwise, the case under Section 306 of IPC would not be made out," the bench said.

The court noted that the high court had stated there was "not a titter of a document" that would pin the accused down for any act of abetment of the deceased's suicide.

"We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any case, there is no reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death," the bench said.

In view of this, the court did not find that the single judge of the high court had erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC.

Regarding Section 420 of IPC, the court noted that the only observation made by the single judge was that if the complainant’s husband had been lured into something during his lifetime, it was open for him to file a complaint.

The single judge had further observed that it was not open for the appellant-complainant to file a complaint after her husband's death. Having observed this, the single judge had held that no semblance of the ingredients of either Section 306 or Section 420 of IPC was found in the case at hand.

"The Single Judge of the High Court, in our view, while quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, has acted in a casual and cursory manner," the bench said.

If the single judge was of the view that even the investigation papers collected by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, then at the very least, he was expected to give reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency was insufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the bench said.

"In absence of any reason given, we are of the considered view that the Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC," the bench said.

The court, however, granted liberty to the accused to file a discharge application if they believed that even the material collected by the investigating agency was insufficient to proceed further with the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

The bench partly allowed the appeal against the high court's judgment of September 3, 2024.

Case Title: R Shashirekha Vs State of Karnataka And Others