LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/r-shashirekha-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-others-20250327/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

R. Shashirekha vs State of Karnataka and Others

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
27 March 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 1539 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih
Citation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217 : 2025 INSC 402
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1217 : 2025 INSC 402
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 420 – Quashing of complaint – Abetment of suicide – Cheating – Victim, respondent nos.2 and 3 partners in a firm, and respondent no.4 was the manager – Victim committed suicide by hanging – After about 39 days, the appellant-wife of the deceased registered a complaint that she found a death note written by the deceased which stated that deceased was cheated by respondent nos.2 and 3, and that the respondent no.4 was directly involved in the case – Case of the appellant that a week before the death of her husband, her husband had received continuous calls from respondent nos.2 and 3, and whenever he received such calls, he used to be completely upset and had decided to commit suicide – Respondents filed a petition u/s.482 before the High Court to quash the FIR – High court allowed the petition holding that ingredients of ss.306 and 420 IPC not made out – Correctness: Held: Nothing could prevent the appellant from reporting the matter to the police immediately after the deceased committed suicide – It is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought – Single Judge of the High Court held there is not a titter of a document that would pin respondents down for any act of abetment for suicide of the husband of the appellant – Even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide – No reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death – High Court did not error in quashing the proceedings u/s.306 – However, the High Court while quashing the proceedings u/s.420 acted in a casual and cursory manner – Least that was expected of the High Court was to give reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency was not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s.420 – In absence of any reason, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings u/s.420 – Impugned judgment, insofar it quashes proceedings u/s.306 is upheld and insofar it quashes proceedings u/s.420, is quashed and set aside. [Paras 12-15, 18, 19, 21]

Keywords: Suicide · Abetment of suicide · Cheating · Death by hanging · Forged signatures on blank cheques · Blackmail · Misuse of money · Quashing of FIR · Instigating deceased to commit suicide · Mini-trial

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 thereby quashing the FIR and further investigation in Crime Case No.172 of 2024 pending on the file of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter, “trial court”). 3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under: 3.
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →