Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, Karnataka High Court
No Specific Act Linked To Suicide In Death Note: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Estranged Wife
|Petition was filed by the woman, who had been charged under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR filed against a woman who was accused of abetting her estranged husband’s suicide.
A petition was filed by the woman, who had been charged under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to abetment of suicide.
A Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed, “In the alleged death note, which is left behind by the deceased, he has stated that his wife needs his death and she had tortured him. Except the aforesaid, there is no mention of any particular act committed by the petitioner which has nexus to the death of the deceased.”
The Court observed that a plain reading of the complaint revealed that the essential ingredients necessary to support the charge were absent.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner and her husband had been married for two years before the FIR was filed on January 26, 2025. However, they had only cohabited for approximately three months following the marriage, after which the woman returned to her parental home. Despite repeated efforts by the husband and his family to reconcile, she refused to return. On the morning of January the husband allegedly died by suicide in his home, leaving behind a handwritten note. It was based on this note that a police complaint was lodged and the woman was booked for abetment.
During the proceedings, the High Court examined the content of the suicide note. In it, the deceased reportedly stated that his wife "wanted his death" and had "tortured him." However, the Court emphasized that the note lacked any specific reference to a particular act or incident that could be legally interpreted as abetment. The court made it clear that general statements of distress, absent concrete allegations tied directly to the act of suicide, are not sufficient to prosecute someone under Section 108 BNS.
The Court also took into account the ongoing legal disputes between the couple. The deceased husband had previously filed a petition before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which indicates he had wanted to resume the marital relationship. In contrast, the woman had initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family before the Magistrate Court, indicating allegations of domestic abuse.
The Court further clarified the legal threshold for a charge under Section 108 BNS. It stated that to invoke this provision, the accused must have committed an act that had both proximity and a clear nexus to the suicide, and such an act must either abet, aid, or instigate the deceased to take the extreme step. In this case, the bench found no such act on the part of the petitioner, particularly since the couple had been living separately for over a year.
Citing relevant case law and Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that the FIR did not withstand judicial scrutiny. As such, this was a fit case for the court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows the High Court to intervene in order to prevent abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the woman’s plea and quashed the FIR filed against her.
Cause Title: Feebi Gottam v. State of Karnataka & Anr., [2025:KHC-D:9393]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sachin C. Angadi
Respondent: Advocates Girija S. Hiremath, Reshma Madiwalar