In a significant ruling on March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of R. Shashirekha vs. State of Karnataka and Others (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14900 of 2024), emphasized that for an offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to stand, there must be a “clear nexus” and “close proximity” between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. The court, presided over by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, partly allowed the appeal, upholding the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash abetment charges while reinstating proceedings related to cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The judgment has significant implications for how courts assess proximity and causation in suicide-related criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the suicide of R. Shashirekha’s husband, a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions, a Bengaluru-based firm he co-founded in 1994 with respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 was employed as the firm’s manager. On April 14, 2024, the deceased was found dead at his residence, hanging from the ceiling. Initially, the police treated it as an unnatural death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), filing an Unnatural Death Report (UDR No. 15 of 2024) and closing the case, concluding it was a suicide.
However, on May 22, 2024—39 days after her husband’s death—R. Shashirekha lodged a complaint alleging foul play. She claimed that while cleaning her husband’s wardrobe on May 18, 2024, she discovered a death note in his handwriting. The note accused respondents No. 2 and 3 of cheating him out of Rs. 60 crore, forging his signatures on blank cheques and papers, and misusing his investments in the company for personal gain. It also implicated respondent No. 4 in the alleged misconduct. Shashirekha further alleged that her husband had been receiving threatening calls from respondents No. 2 and 3 a week before his death, which left him distressed and drove him to suicide.
Based on her complaint, the police registered FIR No. 172 of 2024 against respondents No. 2 to 4 under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. Aggrieved by the FIR and ongoing investigation, the accused filed Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024 before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. On September 3, 2024, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed their petition, quashing the FIR entirely, prompting Shashirekha to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed two primary legal issues:
- Abetment to Suicide (Section 306, IPC): The court examined whether the allegations in the FIR and the death note established a proximate and positive act of instigation by respondents No. 2 to 4 that directly led to the deceased’s suicide. The appellant argued that the High Court erred by dismissing the abetment charge without considering the FIR’s allegations at face value, while the respondents contended that no such nexus existed.
- Cheating (Section 420, IPC): The court assessed whether the High Court was justified in quashing the cheating charges, especially given the investigating agency’s claim of having collected sufficient evidence of forgery and financial misconduct by the respondents.
The Supreme Court’s Decision and Key Observations
On Abetment to Suicide (Section 306, IPC):
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the abetment charges, reinforcing the legal principle that a direct and immediate link between an act of instigation and the suicide is essential. Justice B.R. Gavai, authoring the judgment, 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.”
The court noted a significant delay in Shashirekha reporting the alleged instigation—over a month after her husband’s death on April 14, 2024, until filing the complaint on May 22, 2024. It remarked:
“If her husband was upset a week before his death, whenever he received calls from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 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. Thus, it is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought.”
Citing its recent ruling in Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024 INSC 1020), the court emphasized that a time gap, even as short as 48 hours, could break the nexus between alleged instigation and suicide. In this case, with no clear timeline linking the respondents’ actions to the suicide and a month-long delay in raising the issue, the court concluded:
“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.”
On Cheating (Section 420, IPC):
The court took a different stance on the cheating allegations, criticizing the High Court’s “casual and cursory” approach in quashing these charges. The High Court had dismissed the Section 420 proceedings on the ground that the deceased, not Shashirekha, should have filed a complaint during his lifetime. The Supreme Court found this reasoning inadequate, especially since the investigating agency claimed to have seized “sufficient material” indicating cheating, breach of trust, and forgery by respondents No. 2 to 4.
Justice Gavai observed:
“If the learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that even investigation papers as collected by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, then the least that was expected of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was to give reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency… was not sufficient.”
The court set aside the High Court’s order on this count, directing the trial court to proceed with the investigation and trial under Section 420, while allowing the respondents to seek discharge if they believed the evidence was insufficient.
Case Details
- Appellant: R. Shashirekha, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale.
- Respondents:
- No. 1: State of Karnataka, represented by Shri D.L. Chidananda.
- Nos. 2 to 4: Partners and manager of M/s. Soundarya Constructions, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14900 of 2024).
- Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
