# MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2021] 10 S.C.R. 582
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-10-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahendra-k-c-v-the-state-of-karnataka-anr-34686
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Exercise of power
under, scope - Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, the
driver of accused-second respondent committed suicide - In the
suicide note, he had made serious and grave allegations against
the accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionate
to the known sources of income and a detailed account of the role
of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing
suicide - Second respondent successfully filed s.482 application
for quashing the criminal proceedings - Hence the instant appeal
- Held: High Court while exercising its power under s.482 should
have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made
in the complaint, prima facie constituted an offence; and ii) whether
the allegations were so improbable that a prudent man would not
arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed
with the complaint - Rather, High Court stalled the investigation by
granting an interim order of stay - The alleged suicide was of a
person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition
Officer against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing
wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made
by the deceased and a detailed account of the role of the accused
in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide - These
were matters of investigation and possibly trial - If the investigation
had been allowed to proceed, there would have been a revelation
of material facts which would have aided in the trial, for the alleged
offence against the second respondent - High Court tested the
veracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide
note left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an
evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial - At
the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing
under s.482, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a
judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected
during the course of trial - High Court virtually proceeded to hold
a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed should
or should not have been the normal course of human behavior -
This is clearly impermissible - The entire judgment of the High Court
consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exercise
is beyond the domain of proceeding under s.482 - High Court had
proceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during the
investigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by
an interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of the
proceedings under s.482 - Petition for quashing FIR dismissed -
Penal Code, 1860 - s.306.
Mental Health: The High Court while deciding merits of s.482
Cr.P.C petition has made observations diminishing the importance
of mental health - Mental health of an individual cannot be
compressed to a one size fit all approach.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge has failed to notice the
distinction between a petition for quashing under Section 482
(which was being considered) and a criminal trial or an appeal
against a conviction on a charge under Section 306. The Single
Judge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis and
surmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached an
inference on facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity of
the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide note
left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an
evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial. At
the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing
under Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is whether
the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or
detracting from the complaint, prima fa

## Text

_Characters 0–39,533 of 54,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39533 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 582
582
MAHENDRA K C
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2021)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Exercise of power
under, scope - Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, the
driver of accused-second respondent committed suicide - In the
suicide note, he had made serious and grave allegations against
the accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionate
to the known sources of income and a detailed account of the role
of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing
suicide - Second respondent successfully filed s.482 application
for quashing the criminal proceedings - Hence the instant appeal
- Held: High Court while exercising its power under s.482 should
have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made
in the complaint, prima facie constituted an offence; and ii) whether
the allegations were so improbable that a prudent man would not
arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed
with the complaint - Rather, High Court stalled the investigation by
granting an interim order of stay - The alleged suicide was of a
person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition
Officer against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing
wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made
by the deceased and a detailed account of the role of the accused
in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide - These
were matters of investigation and possibly trial - If the investigation
had been allowed to proceed, there would have been a revelation
of material facts which would have aided in the trial, for the alleged
offence against the second respondent - High Court tested the
veracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide
note left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an
evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial - At
the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing
under s.482, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a
judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected
during the course of trial - High Court virtually proceeded to hold
a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed should
or should not have been the normal course of human behavior -
This is clearly impermissible - The entire judgment of the High Court
consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exercise
is beyond the domain of proceeding under s.482 - High Court had
proceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during the
investigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by
an interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of the
proceedings under s.482 - Petition for quashing FIR dismissed -
Penal Code, 1860 - s.306.
Mental Health: The High Court while deciding merits of s.482
Cr.P.C petition has made observations diminishing the importance
of mental health - Mental health of an individual cannot be
compressed to a one size fit all approach.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge has failed to notice the
distinction between a petition for quashing under Section 482
(which was being considered) and a criminal trial or an appeal
against a conviction on a charge under Section 306. The Single
Judge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis and
surmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached an
inference on facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity of
the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide note
left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an
evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial. At
the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing
under Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is whether
the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or
detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the
ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court
cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can
it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on
the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial.
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
The High Court in the present case has virtually proceeded to
hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed
should or should not have been the normal course of human
behavior. This is clearly impermissible. [Para 16][595-G-H;
596-A-C]
2. The complaint in the present case on the basis of which
the FIR was registered contains a detailed account of: The
knowledge of the deceased in regard to the illegal activities of
the accused; the accused having used the deceased's bank
account for transfer of funds to his relatives; the deceased having
been threatened by the accused and by his "house car driver"
with death; and the recovery of the suicide note which was also
uploaded on the Facebook account of the deceased; The suicide
note in turn provides a detailed account of the wealth amassed
by the second respondent-accused who was an SLAO, worth over
Rs.100 crores; the second respondent-accused having converted
approximately Rs. 100 crores into currency notes of various
denominations; the knowledge of the deceased with respect the
illegal activities of the accused; the accused having used the
deceased for the conversion of currency notes amounting to over
Rs. 75 crores; the payment of the salary of the deceased, who
was a driver having been stopped for three months; a threat of
murder being administered to the deceased following a shortage
in the currency; and the deceased having decided to end his life
by consuming poison, having suffered at the hands of the accused.
In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the
contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind
to arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had
been established. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge
has transgressed the well settled limitations on the exercise of
the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a
territory which is reserved for a criminal trial. [Paras 17, 18]
[596-D-H; 597-A-D]
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC
540 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 548; State of Haryana v.
Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3
Suppl. SCR 259; State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori (2012)
10 SCC 155 : [2012] 8 SCR 858; State of Telangana v.
Managipet (2019) 19 SCC 87 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
3. The High Court while exercising its power under Section
482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted against the second
respondent-accused should have applied the following two tests:
i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie
constitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are so
improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion
that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint.
[Para 21][599-G-H; 600-A-B]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC
605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v.
State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 : [2009] 15
SCR 836; Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal
(2012) 9 SCC 734 : [2012] 8 SCR 1129; Vaijnath
Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7
SCC 781; M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By Its
Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh v.
State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9
SCR 703; Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana
(2020) 15 SCC 359; Gurcharan Singh v. The State of
Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200; Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 -
relied on.
4. While adjudicating on an application under Section 482
CrPC, the High Court in the present case travelled far away from
the parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially,
the task before the High Court was to determine whether the
allegations made in the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or make
out a case against the accused. Instead of applying this settled
principle, the High Court has proceeded to analyze from its own
perspective the veracity of the allegations. This is not a case
where the High Court has arrived at a conclusion that the
allegations in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. Nor is this a case where the
criminal proceeding is manifestly malafide or has been instituted
with an ulterior motive of taking vengeance on the accused. On
the contrary, the specific allegations in the FIR and in the complaint
find due reflection in the suicide note and establish a prima facie
case for abetment of suicide within the meaning of Sections 306
and 107 of the IPC. The entire judgment of the High Court
consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an
exercise is beyond the domain of proceeding under section 482
of the CrPC. The High Court has proceeded to scrutinize what
has been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that the
investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the High
Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under section
482. [Paras 25, 26][602-F; 603-A-D]
5. The High Court observed that a prima facie case for the
commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made
out since: i) the suicide note does not describe the specific threats;
ii) details of the alleged demand of Rs. 8 lacs from the deceased
by the respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note;
and iii) no material to corroborate the allegations detailed in the
suicide note has been unearthed by the investigating agency. The
High Court observed that since the deceased took considerable
time to write a twelve page suicide note, "it would have been but
natural for the author to set out the details". The High Court has
evidently travelled far beyond the limits of its inherent power
under Section 482 CrPC since instead of determining whether
on a perusal of the complaint, a prima facie case is made out, it
has analysed the sufficiency of the evidence with reference to
the suicide note and has commented upon and made strong
observations on the suicide note itself. Further, the observation
of the High Court that there is no material to corroborate the
allegations made in the suicide note is erroneous since it is not a
consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under
Section 482 of the CrPC, particularly in view of the fact that the
trial has not begun and the Single Judge had stayed the
investigation in the criminal complaint. [Para 27][603-D-G;
604-H; 605-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
Case Law Reference
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 548
relied on
Para 19
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
relied on
Para 19
[2012] 8 SCR 858
relied on
Para 19
(2019) 19 SCC 87
relied on
Para 20
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR247
relied on
Para 23
[2009] 13 SCR 230
relied on
Para 24
[2009] 15 SCR 836
relied on
Para 24
[2012] 8 SCR 1129
relied on
Para 24
(2018) 7 SCC 781
relied on
Para 24
(2019) 3 SCC 315
relied on
Para 24
[2019] 9 SCR 703
relied on
Para 24
(2020) 15 SCC 359
relied on
Para 24
(2020) 10 SCC 200
relied on
Para 24
(2021) 2 SCC 427
relied on
Para 24
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1238 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.3515 of 2017
With
Criminal Appeal No.1239 of 2021.
Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Shailja Das, Dr. Anthony
Raju, Ajay Kanojia, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, Sharan Thakur,
Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shantanu Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 19731, a Single Judge of the High Court of
1 "CrPC"
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Karnataka quashed (i) a complaint dated 6 December 2016; and (ii) the
proceedings initiated pursuant to the complaint. The proceedings which
have been quashed were registered as Crime No.565 of 2016 on 7
December 2016at Police Station Maddur, Mandya District, Karnataka
and pending on the file of the IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)
and JMFC Maddur. The complainant, at whose behest the First
Information Report2 was registered foran offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18603, and
the State of Karnataka are in appeal against the judgment of the High
Court dated 29 May 2020.The Single Judge was persuaded to quash the
proceedings on the ground that the continuation of the prosecution "would
[be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring
the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".
A Facts
2. On 6 December 2016, a complaint was lodged at Maddur Police
Station at 20:00 hours by the appellant who is the brother of the deceased.
The complaint narrates that the appellant's brother was working as a
driver for the accused-second respondent. The second respondent is an
officer of the State of Karnataka and is employed in the capacity of a
Special Land Acquisition Officer4. According to the complaint, the
deceased would travel from Bengaluru once in a month to visit the family
home and meet his family and friends. Among his friends was Shashi
Kumar. It is alleged that on 4 December 2016 the deceased met another
friend, Shiva Kumar at Bengaluru and went to the village. After enquiring
about the welfare of his parents, the deceased shared his anguish with
the complainant and Shiva Kumar that the accused, who is an SLAO,
has amassed disproportionate assets worth over one hundred crores
and had utilized the mobile and bank account of the deceased to transfer
funds to his relatives in the course of converting "black money into white".
The complaint narrates that since the deceased was aware of the dealings
of the accused, the accused together with another driver, had been
threatening him with murder.
3. On 6 December 2016 at about 1:30pm, Shashi Kumar called
the complainant to inform him that the deceased was staying in a room
in a lodge and was not opening the door. When he attempted to call the
2 "FIR"
3 "IPC"
4 "SLAO"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
deceased on his cell phone, the deceased spoke in a drunken state and it
was apprehended that he was in some difficulty. The complainant alleged
that he proceeded to the lodge at 3.00 pm and met Shashi Kumar and
found that the room was bolted from inside. The complainant was
informed that on 4 December 2016, the deceased had asked Shashi
Kumar to arrange a room at a lodge, where he stayed with Shashi Kumar.
The deceased is alleged to have informed Shashi Kumar that his life
was in danger as the deceased was aware of the illegal activities of the
accused in amassing wealth as a result of which he was being threatened
with murder. The deceased asked Shashi Kumar to leave the room as
the deceased was expecting another friend of his, Suresh, to join him,
with whom he was going to discuss the activities of the accused. On 5
December 2016, the deceased called Shashi Kumar to bring him food at
the lodge, which was delivered. The deceased informed Shashi Kumar
that his friend Suresh had not turned up. He also told Shashi Kumar to
return home as one of his other friends would be staying with him.
4. On finding that the deceased was not opening his room on 6
December 2016, a ladder was used by the complainant to access the
window of the deceased's room, with the help of the Manager of the
lodge. The deceased was found to be in "sleeping mode". The Maddur
Police Station was informed and when the door of his room was opened
at 18:00 hours, the deceased was found to have died. On a teapoy next
to the cot, a bottle of liquor, poison and a suicide note written by the
deceased were found. The suicide note was uploaded by the deceased
on his Facebook account through his mobile. The complaint narrates
that the suicide note has referred to the illegal activities of the accused
in amassing wealth in excess of Rs. 100 crores, converting black money
into white and transferring funds from the bank account of the deceased
through his mobile to the accounts of the relatives of the accused. The
complaint alleged that the accused had threatened the deceased with
death and harassed him as a result of which the deceased, having suffered
mental stress, committed suicide by consuming poison.
5. The FIR was registered at 20:00 hours on 6 December 2016.The
second respondent-accused, an SLAO for Bengaluru City, and another
driver of his car were named as accused. The suicide note recorded by
the deceased allegedly in his own handwriting contains a detailed narration
of the properties alleged to have been illegally acquired by the second
respondent. Besides detailing the properties which were acquired by the
accused in paragraphs 1 to 13, the suicide note refers to:
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
(i)
The transfer of funds in several lakhs of rupees by the
accused to his relatives by using the cell phone and bank
account of the deceased;
(ii)
The conversion of approximately Rs.100crores into currency
notes of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-;
(iii)
The knowledge of the deceased in regard to the transactions
of the accused as a result of which he had been threatened
to be killed "by rowdies";
(iv)
A raid conducted against the accused by the establishment
of the Lokayukta of Karnataka while he was posted in the
Housing Board;
(v)
The involvement of judges to whom presents or gifts were
made;
(vi)
The payment of salary to the deceased having been stopped
at the behest of the accused;
(vii)
The accused having used the deceased for changing
currency worth over Rs.75 crores; and
(viii) The deceased being in knowledge of "all the information",
and when a shortage of an amount of Rs.8 lakh was found,
the deceased had been directed to make good the deficiency,
failing which he was threatened to be killed by rowdies.
6. In this backdrop, the deceased recorded that he had been
threatened by the accused and hence was ending his life by consuming
poison. Both the second respondent and his "house driver" were
specifically named as responsible for this death.
7. The second respondent-accused was arrested on 11 December
2016. On 12 December 2016, based on a complaint made by BT Suresh,
a friend of the deceased, an FIR was registered against the accused as
Crime No.128/2016 in Ijur Police Station, Ramnagar District, under
Sections 323, 324, 341, 342, 363, 506, 114 read with Sections 120B and
34 of the IPC.
8. On 18 April 2017, the accused instituted a petition under Section
482 CrPC for quashing the FIR registered as Crime No. 565/2016. A
Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka stayed investigation and
proceedings in Crime No.565/2016. After arguments were heard,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
judgment was reserved on 12 November 2019. Eventually, by his
judgment delivered nearly 6 months thereafter on 29 May 2020, the
Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings relating to
the complaint and FIR registered as Crime No.565/2016.
9. At the outset, it is necessary to elucidate the reasons which
have weighed with the High Court in quashing the FIR. The High Court
has held that:
(i)
The suicide note which consists of 21 numbered paragraphs
gives a detailed account of the transactions undertaken by
the accused;
(ii)
For a person who has made such a detailed account of
twenty transactions in the suicide note, it can be prudently
expected that the deceased would have furnished details
of the threats administrated to him by the accused;
(iii)
In the unnumbered paragraph of the suicide note "the totally
different story" is set out, stating that the accused threatened
to kill the deceased since there was a shortage of cash to
the tune of Rs 8 lacs for which the accused suspected the
deceased to be responsible;
(iv)
The deceased held the accused responsible for withholding
his salary for three months;
(v)
Though a query was put to the Government Pleader and
counsel for the complainant as to whether the investigation
had thrown up any material which corroborated the
allegations set out in the suicide note, the GP submitted that
"they have not been able to unearth any material to
corroborate any of the allegations";
(vi)
Though the petition was instituted before the High Court
on 18 April 2017, and was pending for over three years, no
corroborative material had been produced before the Court
by the investigating agency;
(vii)
Even assuming that the accused has amassed huge wealth,
that would not constitute a good ground for a person to
commit suicide since it was not the case of the deceased
that the accused had deprived him of his wealth;
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
(viii) The suicide note contains no incriminating statement or
material except for a bald and vague statement that the
accused had threatened the deceased;
(ix)
The complaint does not disclose details of the alleged threat
nor does it state that the deceased had on multiple occasions
complained of having received threats from the accused;
(x)
The allegation in regard to the demand for repayment of
Rs 8 lacs rings hollow "as neither the prosecution nor the
de facto complainant had placed an iota of material that the
deceased was or had in fact been in possession of huge
sum of money";
(xi)
No act proximate to the time of death is alleged against the
accused;
(xii)
If the allegation of the demand of Rs. 8 lacs was correct, it
would have been natural for the accused to restrain the
deceased from leaving Bangalore to ensure the recovery
of the alleged sum;
(xiii) The investigation had not thrown up any material regarding
the use of the mobile banking facilities of the deceased for
the transfer of funds;
(xiv) Neither the death-note nor investigation revealed a threat
call to the deceased;
(xv)
The only witness who could have spoken about the veracity
of the suicide note was the deceased;
(xvi) If a threat had been administered to the deceased, he would
have narrated the incident to the complainant or his friends;
(xvii) Even if a threat was given, the nature of the threat would
have to be examined particularly on the question as to
whether it was of such an alarming proportion so as to drive
a 'normal person' to contemplate suicide;
(xviii) If the deceased had felt threatened by the accused, this
was belied by his visits to his village to meet his parents and
friends and the failure to lodge a complaint with the police
particularly when the Police Commissionerate was a stone's
throw away. This casts doubt on the veracity of the suicide
note;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
(xix) Since the deceased had consumed alcohol, it is possible
that in the grip of intoxicants he had failed to act sanely;
(xx)
The conduct of the deceased in attending a marriage in a
different town is indicative of the actions of a normal person;
and
(xxi) How the deceased had sourced the poison was unknown.
10. The judgment of the Single Judge has given rise to two special
leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution: one by the
complainant and the second by the State of Karnataka.
B Submission of parties
11. Mr Mahesh Thakur, has appeared for the complainant in support
of his appeal. In the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, Mr V.N.
Raghupathy has appeared and made submissions. The respondentaccused has been represented in the course of his submissions by Mr
Sharan Thakur.
12. Mr Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant urged the following submissions:
(i)
The matter being at the stage of investigation and the second
respondent having been enlarged on bail, the Single Judge
has manifestly erred in quashing the FIR as a result of which
the entire investigation has been scuttled midstream;
(ii)
The High Court has completely failed to notice the
seriousness and gravity of the allegations made against the
accused;
(iii)
The precedents of this Court indicate that in exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court does
not function as a court of appeal or revision and the
jurisdiction has to be exercised with care and
circumspection;
(iv)
The allegations in the FIR and the contents of the complaint,
if taken on their face and accepted in their entirety, clearly
indicate the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC by the accused, in which event it
was improper for the High Court to quash the proceedings;
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
(v)
Besides the suicide note, the deceased had informed both
the complainant and other witnesses of the harassment
which he had suffered at the hands of the second
respondent-accused who had a position of influence as an
SLAO and with whom the deceased worked as a driver;
(vi)
The nature of the threats and whether the deceased had
received calls was a matter for investigation;
(vii)
The suicide note contains a detailed account of the illegal
activities of the second respondent-accused in amassing
disproportionate wealth and the manner in which the
deceased had been utilized for transfer of funds; and
(viii) The High Court has despite the specific allegations in the
suicide note and in the complaint enquired into the veracity
of the allegations, thereby conducting a trial at the stage of
considering a petition for quashing a criminal complaint.
13. Mr V.N. Raghupathy learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State of Karnataka has urged similar submissions. It has been
submitted that:
(i)
The suicide note which was recovered under a mahazar by
the jurisdictional police had also been uploaded by the
deceased from his Facebook account;
(ii)
The suicide note was submitted to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for analysis but the High Court stayed the
investigation while entertaining the proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC and scuttled the investigation;
(iii)
The allegations in the complaint and the suicide note contain
a clear and detailed account of the harassment caused to
the deceased at the behest of the second respondentaccused which on its face establishes a case of abetment
of suicide; and
(iv)
Another complaint filed by a friend of the deceased which
was registered at Ijur Police Station in Ram Nagar District
(Crime No.128/2016) corroborates the averments made in
Crime No.565/2016 of Maddur Police Station.
14. On the other hand, Mr Sharan Thakur, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the second respondent - accused submitted that:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
(i)
Abetment postulates an instigation and in the context of
Section 306, the instigation must be to an extent where there
is no option but to commit suicide;
(ii)
The allegations in the complaint and in the suicide note fall
short of the ingredients to establish a case of abetment and
hence the essential requirements of the offence under
Section 306 have not been established;
(iii)
The Single judge of the High Court had furnished reasons
for indicating that the allegations contained in the suicide
note are inherently improbable;
(iv)
The version of the complainant is full of contradictions and
inconsistencies;
(v)
The suicide note fails to mention any overt act by the
accused which would have driven the deceased to commit
suicide. During the period between 11 December 2016,
when the accused was taken into custody and 29 December
2016, when he was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court
at Mandya, extensive enquiries and investigation were
carried out by the investigating agency including the State
Police and ACP Karnataka, in spite of which no incriminating
evidence has been found; and
(vi)
It is a well settled principle of law that in cases involving
abetment of suicide there must be a number of direct or
indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
other words, a mere allegation of harassment would not
suffice unless the action on the part of the accused compels
the person to commit suicide.
15. The rival submissions now fall for analysis.
C Analysis
16. On reading the judgment of the Single Judge, it would appear
that the Single Judge has failed to notice the distinction between a petition
for quashing under Section 482 (which was being considered) and a
criminal trial or an appeal against a conviction on a charge under Section
306. The Single Judge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis and
surmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached an inference
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
on facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity of the allegations in
the criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind by the deceased
without having the benefit of an evidentiary record which would be
collected during the trial. At the stage when the High Court considers a
petition for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied
is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding
or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients
of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the
veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner
that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected
during the course of trial. The High Court in the present case has virtually
proceeded to hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it
believed should or should not have been the normal course of human
behavior. This is clearly impermissible.
17. The complaint in the present case on the basis of which the
FIR was registered contains a detailed account of:
(i)
The knowledge of the deceased in regard to the illegal
activities of the accused;
(ii)
The accused having used the deceased's bank account for
transfer of funds to his relatives;
(iii)
The deceased having been threatened by the accused and
by his "house car driver" with death; and
(iv)
The recovery of the suicide note which was also uploaded
on the Facebook account of the deceased;
The suicide note in turn provides a detailed account of
(a)
The wealth amassed by the second respondentaccused who was an SLAO, worth over Rs.100
crores;
(b)
The second respondent-accused having converted
approximately Rs. 100 crores into currency notes of
various denominations;
(c)
The knowledge of the deceased with respect the
illegal activities of the accused;
(d)
The accused having used the deceased for the
conversion of currency notes amounting to over Rs.
75 crores;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
(e)
The payment of the salary of the deceased, who was
a driver having been stopped for three months;
(f)
A threat of murder being administered to the deceased
following a shortage in the currency; and
(g)
The deceased having decided to end his life by
consuming poison, having suffered at the hands of
the accused.
18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the
contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind to
arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had been
established. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge has
transgressed the well settled limitations on the exercise of the powers
under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a territory which is
reserved for a criminal trial.
19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issue
such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or
otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise of
power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well settled. In State of
Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo5, a two judge Bench of this Court,
observed that:
"8. [...] While exercising powers under the section, the court
does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise
is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority
of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the
court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process
of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would
be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may
5 (2005) 13 SCC 540
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed,
it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report
has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto."
These principles emanate from the decisions of this Court in State
of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal6 and State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori7.
In Surendra Kori (supra), this Court observed:
"14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section
482 CrPC does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision.
This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, though wide, has to be used
sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section
482 CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,
more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,
are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material."
20. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court laid down the principles for
the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR. Justice Ratnavel Pandian
laid down the limits on the exercise of the power under Section 482
CrPC for quashing the FIR and observed:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles
of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7 (2012) 10 SCC 155
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The judgment in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been recently relied on
by this Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet8.
21. Based on the above precedent, the High Court while exercising
its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted
8 (2019) 19 SCC 87
MAHENDRA K C v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
against the second respondent-accused should have applied the following
two tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie
constitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are so improbable
that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed with the complaint. Before proceeding further, it is
imperative to briefly discuss the law on the abetment of suicide to
determine if a prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC has been
made against the respondent-accused.
22. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment of the abetment
of suicide:
"306. Abetment of suicide-If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section107 of the IPC defines the expression "abetment":
"107.