Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Abetment Charge but Restores Cheating Probe; Trial Court Directed to Proceed

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by R. Shashirekha challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which had quashed an FIR and further investigation in Crime No.172 of 2024. The appeal raised the question whether the allegations justified offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the High Court’s quashing of proceedings under Section 306 IPC but set aside the High Court’s quashing of proceedings under Section 420 IPC and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. The Court agreed with the High Court that, on the material before it, “there [was] no reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death,” and therefore the ingredients of abetment were not made out. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link between the two acts.” The Court also observed that the High Court acted “in a casual and cursory manner” in quashing the Section 420 proceedings without assigning reasons, and therefore interference was warranted on that count. The Court noted that the High Court had found “not a titter of a document that would pin respondent Nos.2 to 4 down” for abetment.

Background The dispute arose after the husband of the appellant, a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions, was found dead at his residence on 14 April 2024; the police conducted an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C., concluded that the death was by hanging and recorded an Unnatural Death Report. About a month later, on 18 May 2024, the appellant said she found a handwritten death note in the deceased’s wardrobe alleging that partners (respondent Nos.2 and 3) had cheated him of about Rs.60 crore, forged his signature on cheques and papers, and induced him into investments; respondent No.4 was alleged to be the company manager involved in the misuse. On 22 May 2024 the appellant lodged a complaint which was registered as Crime No.172 of 2024 for offences under Sections 306, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

Respondent Nos.2–4 filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and further investigation. The Single Judge allowed that petition on 3 September 2024, holding that for Section 306 there must be a proximate and positive act of instigation and that the allegedly forged document was several years old and lacked proximity to the death; with respect to Section 420 the High Court held that if the deceased had been lured during his lifetime he could have filed a complaint and it was not open to the wife to file it after his death.

The Supreme Court heard senior counsel for the parties and examined the material. Applying the proximity principle as discussed in earlier precedents, the Court found no error in the High Court’s quashing of Proceedings under Section 306. However, the Court found the High Court’s quashing of the Section 420 offence to be inadequately reasoned. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the High Court order only insofar as it had quashed proceedings under Section 420, directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law, and clarified that respondent Nos.2–4 would be at liberty to move for discharge before the trial court, which would decide the application uninfluenced by observations made by the High Court or this Court. The appeal was thus partly allowed and the matters pending were disposed of accordingly.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 402 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14900 of 2024) Case Title: R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri D.L. Chidananda, Counsel for State; Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2–4