Bengaluru: Citing the existence of prima facie material, Karnataka high court refused to quash proceedings against a resident of Bettadahalli, Gubbi taluk, Tumakuru district, in an abetment of suicide case.“The life of a young woman has come to an abrupt end. The prosecution alleges that, before that end came, there was a sustained trail of pursuit, coercion, intimidation and interference with her freedom to choose the course of her own life. Whether that trail ultimately leads to the petitioner is a matter for the trial court to determine upon evidence. This court cannot erase the trail before the evidence is permitted to speak. The petitioner must, therefore, face the trial and come out clean in its full-blown form,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order while dismissing the petition filed by Naveen G.The deceased woman, Bhavana, a resident of Nelamangala town, was 22 when she came in contact with Naveen. She was studying nursing in Mysuru and her father used to send her money using Naveen’s mobile. The accused was his friend, Gangaraj’s son.Naveen allegedly professed love towards Bhavana and insisted that she reciprocate and marry him. He allegedly insisted that Bhavana meet him at places chosen by him. He even persuaded her to accompany him to Dharmasthala and other places and secured photographs of them together in this period. He followed her to her workplace, compelled her to accompany him on his motorcycle, insisted upon marriage and threatened that, if she did not yield to his demands, he would circulate photographs in his possession and her prospects of marriage elsewhere would be destroyed.Unable to bear constant harassment, Bhavana tried to commit suicide on July 5, 2025, by consuming sleeping pills. However, she was saved and the two families directed Naveen to stay away from Bhavana. The police complaint was withdrawn on that assurance by Naveen.However, Naveen interfered during Bhavana’s matrimonial negotiations and proclaimed before the prospective groom that he and Bhavana were in a relationship. The marriage negotiations with one Ranjith allegedly collapsed after Naveen telephoned him and made such assertions. Bhavana was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room on July 29, 2025; a case was registered against Naveen.Challenging the same, Naveen argued that there is no proximity between the alleged incident and the date of Bhavana’s death.However, Bhavana’s mother, the complainant in the case, alleged that Naveen, who was already married and had two children, wanted to develop a relationship with her daughter. He, in fact, damaged Bhavana’s marriage prospects twice by informing the prospective groom that he and Bhavana were in a relationship by showing the photographs taken by him.After perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the complaint and the charge sheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered — her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct. Whether every one of these allegations is true is not for this court to decide today. Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite mens rea is a matter that must emerge from evidence. Whether there exists an unbroken causal nexus between his alleged conduct and the suicide is again a matter for trial, the judge added.If these allegations ultimately stand proved, the earlier attempt at suicide assumes considerable significance. It was a warning written in unmistakable terms. The allegation is that, despite such warning, the petitioner persisted with the very conduct that had earlier driven the deceased to the brink. The court cannot, at this stage, put each allegation into a separate compartment and ask whether that act, standing alone, was sufficient to cause suicide. Criminal culpability in a case of this nature may lie in the cumulative force of the conduct alleged. The distinction must remain clear: the court today is not declaring the petitioner guilty; it is only declining to declare the prosecution groundless, Justice Nagaprasanna observed while dismissing the petition filed by Naveen.
