Abetment to suicide of police officer: Karnataka High Court quashes case against former State Home Minister KJ George

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against former Minister KJ George and two IPS officers in a case involving the abetment to suicide of police officer MK Ganapathy..Justice John Michael Cunha, while quashing the order of the special court, observed that, ."Since the material on record does not prima-facie disclose commission of the offences by the petitioners, the action initiated against them is wholly illegal, perverse and amounting to abuse of process of court and it deserves to be quashed. Hence, the impugned order dated August 28, 2020 and the entire proceedings pending before the special court against them are quashed."Karnataka High Court.Factual Background.The father of the deceased, MK Kushalappa, lodged a complaint with the Madikeri police after his son Ganapathy committed suicide in 2016. Accordingly, a case was registered. .He further alleged that deceased was suffering from depression inspite of his promotion and that, he was not leading a peaceful life. .Regarding the same incident, the son of the deceased also filed a complaint with the Kushalnagar police. However, the same was not registered in view of the pendency of the case registered by the father of the deceased. Aggrieved by non-registration of the complaint, the son filed a private complaint before a Magistrate Court. The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and accordingly, an FIR was registered at the Madikeri police station. The DG and IGP, Karnataka entrusted the investigation to the CID. .In the meanwhile, the father and one of the brothers of the deceased filed a petition before the High Court seeking a direction to entrust the said investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court, however, dismissed the pleas. An appeal preferred against the order of the Single Judge was also dismissed by the High Court. .The father and brother of the deceased then approached the Supreme Court contending that they apprehended foul play in the matter and that it could be a case of murder..It was submitted before the Apex Court that Ganapathy had spoken about the harassment meted out to him by then Home Minister George and two IPS officers in an interview with a local TV channel at Madikeri, before committing suicide. The Supreme Court directed the investigation to be handed over to CBI..During the course of its probe, the CBI recorded statements of 108 witnesses including the family members of the deceased, his colleagues as well as various witnesses acquainted..The CBI opined that the deceased was depressed due to various family problems and was taking medication for the same. On the basis of the above, CBI came to a conclusion that that there was no foul play in Ganapathy's death..The agency accordingly filed a closure report under Section 173 of the CrPC. The Special Court went on to reject the 'B Summary' report submitted by the CBI and took cognizance of the alleged offence, punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC on August 28 this year. The Court also served order of summons to George and the two IPS officers (petitioners)..Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court to quash the August 28 order. .Arguments raised.Senior Advocate BV Acharya as well as other senior counsel appearing for the petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding the correctness of the procedure followed by the Special Court in rejecting the final report submitted by the CBI. .It was also contended that the reasoning assigned by the Special Court to differ with the view taken by the CBI is perverse and was not founded on the evidence collected by the investigating agency. .What the Court held.On the point of correctness of the procedure followed by the Special Court in rejecting the final report, the Court failed to concur with the petitioner's submission and opined that there was no procedural irregularity. .However, while going through the merits of the case, the Court observed that even if the evidence collected by the investigating agency is accepted completely, the same does not disclose 'mens rea'/instigation/conspiracy by the petitioners. ."The evidence collected by the investigating agency, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose mens rea or instigation or conspiracy by the petitioners making out the ingredients of the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. In the absence of any material to make out the ingredients of the above offence, there was absolutely no reason or justification for the Special Court to reject the well-founded report filed by CBI and to take cognizance of the alleged offence and issue summons to the petitioners.".On the point of the interview given by Ganapathy before his death, the Court averred that, ."Though in the lengthy interview, he has named a large number of cases dealt by him, a reading of the transcript shows that he was mentally disturbed and completely disoriented. He rambled from one incomplete idea to the next, jumping from one topic to another, as a result, final product appear to be incoherent, disjoined, meaningless and absurd and as such, this statement, in my view, could not have been made the basis to incriminate the accused."Karnataka High Court.Pertinently, the Court held that in view of the "overwhelming evidence", the observation of the Special Judge that there was no prima facie case to show that the deceased was suffering from any mental depression is nothing but "perverse and ignoring the obvious". .The Court added,."The CBI recorded its further opinion that the deceased was depressed due to various family problems. He was taking treatment for depression and neuro related problems and there is no evidence to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 instigated, provoked or compelled him to commit suicide and accordingly filed a closure report under section 173 Cr.P.C.".With these observations, the Court allowed the petition filed by KJ George and two others, thereby quashing order of summons passed by the Special Court on August 28..[Read judgment here]